Talk:Hoodie

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

Hoodies at Bluewater[edit]

Male wearing the Male Fashion Statement that is the Hoodie Ok - how to put in that this is a Moral panic without using "it is believed by some to be..." when we can't back it up. We could also do with finding which tabloid newspaper started this off first. It won't have been Bluewater -> Blair. It will have been tabloid ->Bluewater ->Blair. These things don't appear from nowhere. Secretlondon 02:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Bluewater thing was a con. I work for an IT consultancy firm and a colleague was doing work for Bluewater managemeht at the time. He was told by more than one Bluewater management employee that the hoody ban was largely aimed at removing teenagers from Bluewater specifically because they "hung around but didn't spend enough money". There was, and still is, a number of shops at Bluewater that actually SELL hoodies and baseball caps! It is also worth noting that Bluewater doesn't ask people who are over about 30 and who wear hoodies to leave the building. So don't believe the hype. Its simply about MONEY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.72.183 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the tabloids, but a brief search of the BBC News website gave me much earlier references to hoodies being banned from shops, the earliest being about shops in Folkestone from August 2003. Cohen the Bavarian 16:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the pictue really revelevant to the article. The picture could be taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missydreamchic (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipper[edit]

Why is there no mention of zippered hoodies? Is a hoody considered a jacket if it has a zipper? --Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This seems to be more in line with the consensus on StyleForum. I have changed the definition. If you disagree, let's discuss it here. Kent Wang 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add a note about zipper hoodies because I saw some guy announce in a Youtube comment that a zip-up hoodie was actually a jacket. I doubt that any commenters from 2005 will take offense. (The styleforum link is broken. I will source my addition using contemporary articles.) Livin270 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The zipper is worth mentioning, but it isn't really unique to the hoodie. Azoundria 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) hoodies with zippers are called hooded jackets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.96.252 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, at least not in America. I will add my note to zip-up hoodies under the American section because I'm an American and can't speak for anywhere else. If zip-up hoodies are called jackets anywhere, i.e. the UK or something, it would be interesting to get a note about that as well so that people know the regional distinctions. Livin270 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries[edit]

As a U.S. resident, the apparent controversy over hoodies is absent here, and I was wondering about where it exists. Does anyone know of another place where hoodies are similarly stigmatized or if the controversy is confined to Britain? Cosmonot 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, to an extent. One of my local pubs has a 'no hoodies, no soccer shirts' policy. --Kiand 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the UK. Some people wear a hoodie as a counter-blast to the increasing 'surveillance culture' that seems to be taking over here now. I am 48 with a totally clean criminal record and no intention of doing anything to merit one, but often wear a hoodie because I am sick of constantly looking up and finding a CCTV camera staring at me. It's not the camera - but the thought of the snide petty-official 'warden' sat at the other end that irritates me. 160.84.253.241 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In netherlands 'hoodies', locally not named, but described, as 'with capuchon', became very popular in the time of massive anti-nuke protests etc. The reason people would have (slogan bearing) jumpers *with* capuchons, was that it proved helpfull not to be arrested on the way home, or in advance at a next demo. Also when the police violence broke loose , one could resist with more chance of escape. As a result people tended to wear hoodies in similar colours, most often black, and often sloganned, or otherwise recognisable (cartoons, symbols, motto's) as part of the subculture. In peace/forest camps, and eviction threatened squats eg. the usefullness of not being fotographed (and hence being not only traceble but frequently hindered in career's, jobs and social applications) can be evident every moment. Since the early 90s at some point the trend seemed to weaken, but ever so often the new youth culture found reason to join in the habit. What i miss in the article is the relation with positive social action.(eg stealing food when you friends are hungry). 80.56.39.16 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is horrible! I am glad I live in Canada. And it's great that so many people are fighting back. Azoundria 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely should be noted that the problem in the UK is not extant at all in many other countries; I know that, in Australia, South Africa, continental Europe, and the parts of the US where I've gone, there is no issue with the hoodie. In fact, in some places in Europe, having a hoodie under a jacked has turned into a trendy part of semi-formal culture. 211.30.58.23 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoody" vs. "hoodie"[edit]

I'm wondering about a more mundane controversy: whether "hoody" or "hoodie" is the more generally accepted spelling. Right now, the article implies that "hoody" is more generally accepted. However, Google reports "hoodie" being used more than "hoody" on the Web by about 2:1. Personally, I have never seen "hoody" used as the singular before I saw this Wikipedia article. It could be argued that this is a case of UK vs. US English, but note that even on Web sites in the .uk domain, "hoodie" appears to be favored slightly (about 55% "hoodie" to 45% "hoody"). —LarryGilbert 16:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering the same thing. I've always seen it "hoodie" and also noticed the Google disparity. Sarge Baldy 08:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I've only seen "hoodie." Also, I think -ie endings look better on the page than -y endings, but that's far less relevant. I'd suggest moving the page. Borksamoht 08:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this can be solved with the reason I moseyed on over to the talk page in the first place… Doesn’t hoodie seem a bit informal to anybody else? What about hooded sweatshirt, which avoids the -ie/-y conflict? Wiki Wikardo 10:08, 28 December 2006

Hoody looked more correct for me at the time of originally starting this article (which I see has come along quite nicely), and I generally like shorter words, but if it redirects it works for me. Azoundria 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoodie"[edit]

Where did this term come from? Am I correct in thinking it only became commonly used a couple of years ago? I had never heard it until . . . I don't know the exact date. Maybe 2002, 2003? Somewhere around there. Does anyone know when it began? Or when it began to spread? -Branddobbe 07:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise that i am lacking a date for you, but i woud suggest that it is shortened from Hooded Sweatshirt.69.209.57.233 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Jason[reply]

I know that it was being used in Australia, at least in the hip hop subculture, by the late 90s. Can't get more specific than that. Fipe 12:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the discrimination going on in Britain right now and how the hoodie was only starting to catch on their in 2007, I would have to conclude that the hoodie was not invented there. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article325292.ece

I would guess America, Australia, or Canada. Azoundria 05:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been used in British youth culture since 2002, Have no sources for this though, and I would imagine it's unlikely to be in print anywhere then, as it's a slang term. As I said, no sources, I just know because I was there. 22:13, 18 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.219.135 (talk)

I obviously have nothing to back this up but growing up on the east coast I remember hearing the term hoodie way back in 1991. It is definitely hip hop / street slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.55.170 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hoodlum[edit]

It seems the hoodie (or hoody, whatever)makes people talk about the hoodie. That's wrong. A Hoodie is neither good or bad. It just shows the person behind/under the hoodie more expressive than he is. Test it for yourself: look at a person with his hood on his head and get in touch with your feelings. Either you fall in love because the hoodie looks tender, either you hate the hoodie because he looks decadent. It always works! That's why the government need to force everybody to wear a hoodie. Hoodies don't lie!!!

amen!

Band hoodies[edit]

What about band hoodies (Hoodies with the logo of a rock band on)? I've seen them around for much longer than the 'chav' ones, and even though they're different (and often worn by people whose way of life is different), there's still some sort of stigma attached - I've receieved many dirty looks and had people (mostly older people) complain to me about wearing one on the odd occasions I've worn one. Possibly notable (not what happened to me, obviously, I mean band hoodies in general)?

And by the way, I think this whole hysteria over it is absolutely ridiculous. 80.6.98.250 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Hoodies[edit]

Hoodies are a Male Dominent Fashion trend, generally the woman that wear them are Lesbians or pretending to be Male.

User 88.108.51.238: women wear hoodies, as do girls. To say that only men and boys wear them is factually incorrect and nonsense. Changing it back to exclude women and girls will be considered vandalism.Bobanny 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Bobanny: Boys and Men wear them, not girls and women - you stop talking nonsense - as that is considered as vandalism 88.108.51.28 19:59, 22 September 2006
This is crazy!? Did anyone seriously mean that point about hoodies being for men only? Is this the same lunatic who keeps saying bras are unisex!?Spute 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems to be the same lunatic, although not always the same IP address.Bobanny 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

urrm i am not the same person actually, i find that extremely offensive. i have a static IP address thankyou very much. and bra's are unisex thankyou as mentioned by the previous person or as you call them 'weirdo'. i think you will find commenting about a specific IP on wikipedia is a bannable offense as well.

Yes, that's right bras are unisex. Of course they are. Thank you for clarfying. The other editors shouldn't call you a weirdo. Even if... Addhoc 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty far-fetched to say that women never wear hoodies. My univerisity has a whole section of college hoodie's made for women, and it has to be one of the most commonly worn items around campus when it gets cold. 148.61.211.67 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

Should we consider semi-protecting the page to prevent the "male" obsessed IP address from making further changes? Addhoc 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to have ended. Perhaps if it starts up again protection should be sought.Bobanny 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks like I was wrong. Yeah, semi-protection is probably a good idea.Bobanny 19:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History - Who invented it?[edit]

No-where in the article is the historical derivation of the modern 'hooded jumper' with kangaroo pouch. I think US brand 'Champion' has been manufacturing the modern hood for much of the 20th Century - being the norm of 'boxing' training gear. Ideas? Ethikos 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a more detailed article on sweatshirts, and on the web, it's clear that Russell Athletic invented the sweatshirt. https://www.russellathletic.com/blog/sweatshirt-history . This should probably be the starting point in this article.

viewpoint problems[edit]

Just read through this article, and it is extremely focused on Great Britain. If I didn't know better, I would think that wearing a hoodie is looked down upon nearly everywhere in the world. I understand that there is a controversy in the UK and Ireland, but perhaps it should be made more clear that, at least in the United States, wearing a hoodie is not always perceived as uniform for hoodlums. 209.129.161.251 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Curiously we are told that it is in the US too (!) - there is a fake american english import "hood rat" etc in the popular press and we just got vandalism with similar. I think the reason why it is UK focussed it because of the moral panic - hoodies are a symbol as well as an item of clothing. An article on an item of clothing wouldn't otherwise get the attention. Secretlondon 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, It seems that the UK has a much more interesting relationship with the hoodie than America does. In fact, I never knew about the uproar until I read this article, I just assumed that people wear hoodies because they are warm. Is it offensive to wear a hoodie with the hood down as well? While living in Fargo, ND I never see people wearing hoodies in the summer but always in the winter, usually under outer coats, because they help to insulate the wearer against windchill/warm the ears. I do agree that the article is too focused on one country as it stands, but perhaps this could be better incorporated into the article as a whole. Zrekhan 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not offensive as much as class-connected. I think it is to do with the spread of US popular culture (branded sportswear being a culture import), tied in with the fear of (generally black) youths and the current fear of crime hysteria. We have a very high coverage of CCTV cameras and multiple crime "crackdowns" get votes. (I forget the number of crime bills in the last five years but it's loads). Wearing branded sportswear is deprecated in the UK - although if you read our chav article you'd think they all deserved it (chav is roughly urban white trash). The newspapers now refer to hoody wearing criminals as "hoodies". You get headlines like "Hoodie throws man off train", which is an incredible feat for a sweatshirt.. Secretlondon 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the term "hoodrat"

In the US it is an insult or put down used that describes a local girl or young woman in one's own neighborhood considered to be inconsequential or a nuisance, or a female from any low income urban area with the implication that she is lacking sophistication or any potential for social or economic advancement, similar to the insult "trailer trash" a demeaning term for residents of low income rural areas regardless of gender. The "hood" in the term is short for "neighborhood" not sweatshirt hood.

Unrelated, the term "hood" was commonly used in the 1940's-60's to describe teenage male or young man perceived to be menacing or a ne'er-do-well but was taken from the word "hoodlum" and also with no connection to sweatshirts.

173.133.130.151 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Moi[reply]

This article is kind of crappy.[edit]

Who first made the sweatshirt hoodie we know today? What region did it popularize in first? Cultural significance and subculture scene association? Variety of logoing, patterns and styles? In media? In pop culture?

This is a popular piece of clothing, it deserves more effort than it has received.

Also the section on England has to be modified and fit into a better narrative through the article. Too much focus. <Unsigned?>

Yes. These are the things I would be curious to know - but I'm not really sure where to look. Azoundria 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bunnyhug" term[edit]

In Saskatchewan, Canada a hoodie or hoody is traditionally known as a "bunnyhug" or "bunny hug". I added this to the hoodie entry but it was removed by an anonymous user. I'm not sure what source I would cite for this. On the Wiki, I found this page but it wouldn't really provide any further credibility. Thoughts?

It's in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary as referenced on its Wiktionary page.Maguirer (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontal pocket?[edit]

I notice absolutely no mention of the large frontal pockets on hoodies - which are actually one of the most important features. I know when I created this article, that was the only thing I mentioned and where did it go?

I think we should agree on an official term for them, like frontal pockets or I heard someone say kangaroo pouch. What are the thoughts on this? Azoundria 05:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake here - hoodies don't usually have LARGE frontal pockets. I lost my car keys forever because I put them in my hoodie pockets and they fell out easily, because the pockets were too SMALL, and shallow. So this should be mentioned in the article, and we can cite the reference as 'experience'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.177.45 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this user's experience was with the small, shallow pockets sometimes added to zip-up hoodies. This is a different pocket style from the "kangaroo pouch"-style large single pocket commonly found on unzippered hoodies. Livin270 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the fashion project assessment department[edit]

Whoever tagged this with

{{globalize}} was (ahem) spot on. You'd never know, reading this, about hoodies' glorious US history. They started primarily as an athletic garment and I do recall people wearing them, mainly boys and young men on sports teams, in at least the late 1970s. Their primary advantage was (and is) that they're good for wearing outside in cool weather as you can pull the hood up and stash your hands in the pocket when you get cold standing around waiting for things. And if it gets warmer, you can pull the hood down. It also has slightly scarf-like functions ... I used to wear it to keep my neck warm while skiiing.

Back in my teen years (the early and mid-'80s) the term "hoodie" had not yet been coined. They were just called hooded sweatshirts. They were never a fashion item and you would have laughed at the idea they ever would be. It was something you wore as very casual going out clothing or playing touch football or something like that. In my college years, I had about four or five different ones. Men always seemed to more attached to them (i.e., wearing them for years until they practically fell apart) than women. How can this article omit Adam Sandler's classic "Red Hooded Sweatshirt" song from Saturday Night Live? It captures everything hooded sweatshirts once were.

I have added this article to the hip-hop project to reflect its status as a current fashion item. Daniel Case 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre[edit]

All talk, none of this. Very frustrating. ALTON .ıl 09:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question abou UK Stigma[edit]

Here's a question I can't seem to find an answer for anywhere, so maybe somone in the UK can answer it... is this anti-hoodie sentiment extended towards all people who wear hooded sweatshirts, or only those who wear their hoods up indoors? I mean, I suppose there's no way of telling outdoors and in bad weather whos's going to take their hood down when they're in from the rain/cold, but do the clothing bans inside malls apply to the garments themselves or to the act of wearing the hood up in the mall? 68.236.159.105 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment is more concerned with outside actually as people are seen as hiding their faces from cctv cameras. I think the clothing bans inside malls are regardless of whether the hood is up or down. Secretlondon 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie being used as a female-only phrase[edit]

I have removed this, as I can't find any verified source on the net. The hoodie originally got its name from working men, anyway - so the claim is incorrect. --Lemons&Limes (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worn by males only?[edit]

I can't believe a female has never donned one, if only in private. EdX20 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemons&Lime, please cite a WP:RS source that says school uniform hoodies are for male students only, or that hoodies are more commonly worn by men. A picture or a personal site is not a reliable source. --Mosmof (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very UK centric[edit]

This article goes on and on about how evil hoodies are and hoodlums and theives use them so they've been banned by civilized society and are a symbol of moral corruption etc etc etc

But they're a staple of American casual wear. Looking around a classroom you'd probably see at least 40% of students with a hoodie close by. Most American youth use (sometimes layered) hoodies as heavy winter wear. No American would ever give a second glance because of a hoodie. They're perfectly normal, accepted, comfortable values well within the range of upstanding social behavior. And the article says absolutely NOTHING to that effect. In america, we wear them, we like them, and it's not a big deal. Maybe the brits are afraid of their fancy 100 trillion GBP webcam network not being able to see faces for hoods, but in america we wear whatever we want and (mostly) don't care what other people wear.

So I tagged the article with {{Globalize/UK}}. Someone please work this into the article- they are NOT AN ISSUE in the rest of the world. I added something at the bottom before and someone took it out, obviously feeling justified in removing non sourced material, as if it's really that important to mathematically prove a sweatshirt article. It's like I was trying to build a dam and I dropped a log in the water and he looked at the water flowing around it and said ITS NOT HOLDING WATER. TOO WEAK. And smashed the log.

I came to the talk page to add this very sentiment. Here in the U.S. I've never heard of any sort of of discrimination against hoodies other than the distinction of being casual wear. My parents and even grandparents wear hooded sweatshirts so reading this article is more about controversy than the actual clothing item is quite bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.204.179 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In real Europe the hoodie has hardly any stigma at all. In Germany, France, Belgium, etc hoodies are worn by scores of people. Although these countries have the same issues with e.g. youth criminality nobody has yet arrived at blaming it on the hoodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.22.44 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hoodie isn't just a staple for hip hop culture[edit]

Hoodies have been common athletic and fitness attire in the USA for decades, since before Sylvester Stallone donned one in Rocky, as well as before the advent of hip hop or rap music. I mention this because there is far too much emphasis on stereotypes, and associating them with hip hop, in this article; at least from an American viewpoint. They are simply another type of sweatshirt, and are not anymore symbolic then crew-neck sweatshirts, but I suddenly feel dirty after reading this article, since I've donned hoodies while running ever since the seventies and never knew that anyone viewed me as a thug for doing so.


Rogun (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK use of the word 'Hoodie'[edit]

"Cameron also perpetuated the mistaken use of the word hoodie to refer to a wearer of a hooded garment, rather than the garment itself, a mistake that many older Britons now continue to make." Is it a mistake, or just an example of the flexibility of language, that the people wearing the garment are now known by the name of the garment? People wearing hoodies may not refer to themselves that way, but that doesn't make this use of the term a mistake. NelC (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

etymology[edit]

has it been called a "hoodie" since it was invented in the 1930s? i seem to only remember hearing this name in the last few years. "hooded sweatshirt" before that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.73.209 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar question. My friend in college in the ‘70’s called her hooded sweatshirt “her hoodie “. I thought it was cute that she came up with that term. Can she have been the originator? I never heard it called that again until the ‘ 90’s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4D80:868C:25C4:1E33:4B15:4119 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodies at schools?[edit]

Should we restructure this article and change the title to "Hooded Sweatshirt" or "Sweatshirt?[edit]

A. It was invented and has been commonly and continually worn for decades before the slang term "hoodie" was adopted. Granted, referring to it as a "hoodie" is now fairly common among english speakers born since the 4th quarter of the 20th century, but older segments of the population may lack familiarity with the term while "hooded sweatshirt" or "sweatshirt" is more universally understood by those familiar with the garment. Also both, the majority of the items manufactures and retailers such as department stores and general non-specialy clothing outlets refer to the item as a "hooded sweatshirt"

While wikipedia guidelines favor the most commonly used name, when that the use of that name is concentrated primarily among a particular geographic, cultural, linguistic or demographic population that the articles subject independent of then preference is given to the original, formal or technical name. An example is the sleeveless undershirt that is referred to commonly in the UK as a "vest" and by same age demographic that is familiar with the term "hoodie" in the US as a "wifebeater" but on wikipedia the conflict is avoided by referring to it as an "A-shirt" a much less commonly name that manufacturers and retailers use to describe the garment.

B. While the information in the article may very well be factual, the misplaced weight and lack of perspective could mislead readers unfamiliar with the topic. While popularity of the "hoodie" among certain youth subcultures in the British isles may relatively recent. In the US where it was created, its post war ubiquity has continually grown as what is popularly considered acceptable fashion increasingly became less formal. Currently in the US, "hooded sweatshirts" are very commonly worn by Americans either as athletic, recreational or casual apparel regardless of age, income level, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or political affiliation. Specifically among US teenagers/young adults, parents, teachers and police "hooded sweatshirts" are unremarkable and in themselves do not carry any specific social identity significance and may just as often be on the back of a model student, gang affiliate, socially awkward bookworm, or among those who identify with one of many often aesthetically diverse youth subcultures such as goth kids, scenesters, skaters, backpackers, crustpunks, grits, punks, surfers, neo-hippies, hardcore kids etc. In the US, far from being a recently introduced and socially contentious symbol, the "hooded sweatshirt" has for decades such generic staple in the American wardrobe that it could arguably along with the T-shirt, blue jeans and sneakers be considered part of the national costume of the United States.

C. The article is primarily focused on the social perception and cultural impact of the topic that is rather specific to the Ireland and the UK, rather than on the topic itself. A somewhat similar scenario might be as if the Dr. Martens article was instead titled "Docs" and mainly concentrated on the popularity and social impact the shoes had in the US in the late 20th century. This cultural significance of the "hoodie" in the UK and Ireland deserves a subsection in the article, with perhaps even a majority of the article's verbiage or a brief summery and link to a separate more in-depth article specific to this particular phenomenon. 173.133.130.151 (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Moi[reply]

I agree that the title needs to be changed to "Hooded sweatshirt," as this is the original name. I will start the process shortly. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has already been established, so it seems that "Hoodie" is the accepted title. If anyone knows anything more, please feel free to add to this thread. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful link[edit]

From Slate: "When Did Hoodlums Start Wearing Hoods?". Most relevant paragraph here:

The hooded sweatshirt doesn’t have the same long history as the hood itself. The Champion clothing company invented it in the 1930s. According to some, the hoodie was intended for warehouse workers in frigid upstate New York. That may be true, but the hooded sweatshirt quickly became popular with young people. Sears and Roebuck catalogs from the same decade offered hooded sweatshirts for $1 with the pitch “keep warm for winter sports,” and noted they were “great for boys.” (The hooded sweatshirt’s surge in popularity mirrored that of Mickey Mouse, who was born in 1928 and featured on sweatshirts in the same 1930s Sears spread as the hoodies.) Hoodies became associated street-toughs when Rocky captivated the American movie audience in the late 1970s. Some people began to associate the hooded sweatshirt with hoodlums in the 1970s, as graffiti artists and criminal gang members used them to hide their identities.

The linked New York Times article is probably even more helpful, though I'd like to get more sourcing on the claims made within. --Mosmof (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post on history of the hoodie[edit]

Due to the Trayvon Martin incident, there's been a lot of focus on hoodies lately. Which is good for this article. Here's a really nice article on the history of the hoodie and its connotations:

Should be useful for a lot of the info in the article already. SilverserenC 00:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tumblr m1cuj153YF1rssd6zo1 400.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Tumblr m1cuj153YF1rssd6zo1 400.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tumblr m1cuj153YF1rssd6zo1 400.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 July 2013[edit]

This Statement from the New York Times is 100% Untrue and shows a lack of professional research when making claims. "The hoodie took off in the 1970s, with several factors contributing to its success. Hip hop culture developed in New York City around this time, and the hoodies element of instant anonymity, provided by the accessible hood, appealed to those with criminal intent.<ref name="nyt" / Actually the hoodie is primarily associated with Hip Hop culture because Break-dancers wore hoodies to perform moves called head-spins, and hoodies made them easier, and more comfortable to perform. This is the truth. Although Criminals did utilize the instant anonymity that the hood provided, it is grossly inaccurate to attribute the criminal aspect to Hip-Hop as during the 1970s and early 1980s Hip-Hop primary popularized hoodies for Break-dancing purposes, and not criminal activity, as the "gangsta" element in Hip-Hop did not begin to surface until about 1987-1988.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.77.172 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiPuppies bark dig 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "10-year-hoodie" technology[edit]

For those copyeditors who find the content spammy, I have nothing to do with any clothing brands, and do not even own a hoodie. The inclusion is based on the fact that it is a notable technological innovation. Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added content would be better included in the Textile article, not here, since the technological innovation applies beyond hoodies. I favor moving the content away from this article. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to this if copyeditors believe this to be the most suitable course of action. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "10 year hoodie" turns up a link to a Kickstarter campaign, and several unrelated links to stores that offer 10-year guarantees on hoodies. I don't see any evidence that cotton yarn and a mock safety stitch are a "notable technological innovation"; rather, it seems more of an advertisement. A few users have removed this content, and User:Soulparadox keeps re-adding it as "an innovation in hoodie design", but I agree with User:Poiuyt Man's assessment in his edit comment: "Many hoodie manufacturers include unique features and innovations to differentiate their product; singling out a single product is simply advertisement." - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful @Brian Kendig: In addition your conclusion, I think that your Talk contribution to this thread is an exemplar for how contentious edits should be resolved. Not only have you undertaken substantial research and recounted the edit history accurately, but you have conveyed your position in a respectful manner. Thank you. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Catherine's University[edit]

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

I think any experienced contributor, who was observed their share of edit wars, will agree that using an inadequately brief edit summary to explain a complicated or controversial edit is the most common trigger for edit warring. This practice dangles a huge temptation to the other party to make their rebuttal in their own edit summary, which requires them to revert the reversion. Instant edit war.

"Discussions", if one can call them that, conducted in edit summaries are terribly opaque. No uninvolved third party can understand what is really under dispute, unless they step through each edit, one at a time. Even then it can be difficult, or even impossible, to figure out what generated all the bad feelings. After weeks or months after the dispute I doubt if even the participants can be counted on to understand what the dispute is about.

Further, good faith previously uninvolved third parties should be able to look for the history of, and discussion and resolution of complicated editorial disputes on the talk page. Should uninvolved third parties even be expected to look at the edit summaries to see if there were any stealth disputes?

Another contributor excised new material I added, saying, in their edit summary "Rm minor incident."

I added three sentences, 66 words, plus supporting references. Yes, this is not the most important incident where law enforcement officials, security guards, or vigilantes, have over-reacted to reports of suspects wearing hoodies. That is why I only added three sentences.

When Trayvon Martin was murdered, in part, because his hoodie triggered unfair suspicion, protestors attended demonstrations wearing hoodies of their own. Suspicion over the wearing of hoodies is seen as a public safety issue. Is there any reason why we shouldn't cover every well-documented instance where reports that a suspect, apparently at large, was wearing of a hoodie, put public safety at risk?

FWIW, I raised a similar issue on another article's talk page, when Calton made an even larger excision, offering only the edit summary "rm minor incident". Calton changed the section heading of the section I started -- which I think lapses from our rules and conventions as to how to engage in talk page discussion. It says "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." I encourage them to consider the recommendations of WP:TPO. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your section titles -- just like the one I corrected above -- were vague, self-serving codswallop which added nothing to the discussion except your pious sense of martyrdom. Your titles should actually reflect what the section is about.
And here, we have a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, where you interpreted a minor campus incident as being all about this article's topic. So no, they're not reliable sources HERE. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SYNTH? SYNTH warns contributors against introducing "A" and "C" -- facts or opinions documented to RS -- and then inserting an undocumented opinion, "B" connecting "A" and "C" into article space.

    I don't think I did any such thing. If you think you can quote a passage in the my contribution to the article where I introduced significant SYNTH, I'll give you a hats-off. But, even so, complete excision of my contribution to article space wouldn't be authorized by policy. If, for the sake of argument, a passage in my contribution to article space really did lapse from SYNTH, wouldn't policy recommend merely excising or rewriting that passage?

    Now, if your SYNTH comment refers to my mention of Trayzon Martin, above, I think you are seriously misinterpreting both SYNTH, and the real purpose of talk page discussions.

    The real world can be complicated. Good faith contributors can look at the same reliable authoritative references, and have different interpretations of how to neutrally cover what those RS say, and how much coverage the references merit.

    What we are supposed to do is engage in discussions, where we discuss why we disagree over how to interpret those references; where we discuss how much coverage those references merit.

    When we engage in discussions on talk pages, and other fora, we are supposed to avoid applying inflammatory terms to other people's comments, like "self-serving codswallop".

    SYNTH applies to article space. Here, on a talk page, there is no restriction on drawing conclusions that would not belong in article space, so long as those comments were intended to improve the article's coverage of the topic.

  • UNDUE? UNDUE warns against giving some aspect of a topic a disproportionate amount of coverage. As I said above, I added three sentences to this article. If you think this is the wrong amount of coverage, don't you have an obligation to explain why you think it is the wrong amount. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to decide whether your problem is that you're dishonest or incompetent, but your two bits of fact-free bad faith -- and yes, false -- is tilting towards to former. Keep it up and it'll be an issue for WP:ANI. And yes, you made two obviously false statements: I shouldn't have to say that, but given your track record, you'll make something up if I don't. --Calton | Talk 21:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Catherine's University redux[edit]

On May 2, 2018, I added two sentences, and a reference, to the paragraph about George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin. Here is my addition.

Zimmerman's defense team offered what was called "the hoodie defense".<ref name=RaceAndRacism/> They argued that it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to regard Martin's hoodie as a threat. According to Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, author of Race and Racism, following Zimmerman's trial the hoodie became "emblematic of the Black Lives Matter movement."

An IP contributor, 2607:fea8:2d1f:fa39:8c51:1293:69d3:6ffa, reverted my edit, with the edit summary "Poor quality source and too much weight bring put on a barely related topic. This is about a article of clothing not a court case."

"Poor quality source"? The reference was to a book, Race and Racism, written by a respected academic whose academic focus is racism. So, I believe the sockpuppet's claim I used a "poor quality source" is nonsense.

As for the claim I was putting "too much weight" on the perception that black youths were more threatening when they were wearing hoodies... For crying out loud, those organizing protests over Martin's shooting, and violence against black youths, in general, called for protestors to attend wearing hoodies.

Frankly, I think we need more coverage of the association between racism, racial profiling, and wearing hoodies. Here are some additional references... Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. David Graham (March 2012-03-28). "Politicians Who've Worn Hoodies to Protest the Trayvon Martin Shooting". Atlantic magazine. Retrieved 2018-05-03. Rush is no rookie at thumbing his nose at authority -- he was a Black Panther leader in his youth -- and it seems pretty clear he knew what he was doing, since he moved to the podium wearing a blazer, then removed the coat, pulled up the hood, and replaced his glasses with sunglasses only once he'd begun speaking. "Racial profiling has to stop. Just because someone wears a hoodie, does not make them a hoodlum," Rush said. Perhaps not, but it does make him a violator of the rules of decorum of the U.S. House of Representatives, according to the presiding chair. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. "Trayvon Martin shooting sparks "hoodie" movement". CBS News. Retrieved 2018-05-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. Simon Evans (2012-03-23). "Heat make "hoodie" protest over Florida teenager death". Reuters. Orlando, Florida. Retrieved 2018-05-03. Miami Heat basketball players posed in "hoodies" in a picture published on Friday to protest against the Florida shooting death of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch volunteer who said he was acting in self-defense. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. Bruno J. Navarro (2012-03-28). "Wearing Hoodie In Congress: Fair Protest or Disrespectful?". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-05-03. The floor of the House, Rush argued, "should not ever be disconnected nor distant from the cries of the American people for justice. That's one of the reasons I wore the hoodie to the floor." {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. Linton Weeks (2012-03-24). "Tragedy Gives The Hoodie A Whole New Meaning". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2018-05-03. A simple hooded sweatshirt has become emblematic of certain assumptions in America. And of a desire by many to overturn those assumptions. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. Elizabeth Flock (2012-03-22). "Trayvon Martin 'Million Hoodie March': A short history of the hoodie". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-05-03. One question at the center of the Trayvon Martin debate is: Would this have happened if the hoodie-wearing teenager was white? {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. Lou Dubois, Rosemary Connors (2012-03-24). "Philly's 'Million Hoodie March' Draws Thousands". NBC Philadelphia. Retrieved 2018-05-03. Participants wore hooded sweatshirts in support of Martin, who was wearing one at the time of his death. The case, which has caused a national uproar due to reports that Martin - who is black - was stereotyped for wearing the hoodie, has also resulted in an outpouring of support in the form of the "Million Hoodie March," on social media and more. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. Kristen Ann Hungerford (2015). "The Hoodie and Other Protest Strategies Following the Death of Trayvon Martin: Conflicting Discourses of Social Change and White Privilege" (PDF). Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Vol. 5, No.3/4, 2015, pp. 99-110. Retrieved 2018-05-03. White protestors who claimed they were "Trayvon Martin" and donned hoodies to stand in solidarity with Martin and other black Americans kept their white privilege silent, thus stabilizing post-racism. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

This seems like a baffling quantity of discussion for what appears to be a straightforward edit. The cryptic section title doesn't help, either.

Fashion is always at least a little bit political, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. An anthropologist is qualified to comment on the social significance of a garment, and this seems like a well-supported and significant context for how the garment is now seen in the US. I have some concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH for the sources listed above, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be included, only that it should be handled carefully. If we're going to mention Rocky and hip-hop culture, giving a couple of sentences to Black Lives Matter seems reasonable and proportional. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie Mass Popularization 2000's and alternative rock/ culture[edit]

I like to give outside voices their due. Because something appears in magazines or on fashion runways does not mean it becomes popular. Lots of clothing in the late 1990's included hoods on them. The recent 2000's and current mass popularization of the Hooded sweatshirt was started by people in alternative rock scene, and by protesters, many who take part in the same events.

Hoodies were popular with inner hip hop specifically gangster wrap in the 1990's. Hoodies appeared on fashion clothing, sometimes on high fashion clothing....but it did not go main stream. In the early 2000's - 2002 and forward people into alternative rock started wearing black hoodies in cold weather.By 2005, mid 2000's it had blown up and everyone started wearing them, and it was blown up to mainstream society. They were never popular during the Hip hop period in the mid 90s with the average person on the street.Starbwoy (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and accurate to my experience too. Punk and alt-rock popularized the hoodie as much as hip-hop did, and it was not really "popularized" in the 70s so much as became prominent in very specific subcultures and settings i.e. athleisure. Its current ubiquity is quite recent. This article from Rolling Stone would be a good place to start for making the History section more well-rounded and improving citations: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-history-of-the-hoodie-237791/

Japan[edit]

There was an edit adding a Japan section that kept getting deleted because it was incomprehensibly written/sourced but it actually has some value. It essentially said hoodies are well-liked in Japan and notably feature in the Decora street fashion style which "originated in the late 1990s/early 2000s where a plain shirt and hoodie was often worn with short tutu-like skirts". Their sources were http://showstudio.com/projects/sportswear/hoodies-gary-warnett (didn't actually watch the video because 30 minutes of a guy talking about hoodies is not my style) and http://www.aka-hoodies.com/ I found another source that seems better for the Decora factoid: https://jpninfo.com/94276 May come back later and add this if no one else does. Livin270 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced a broader variety of images[edit]

The article's imagery was white- and male-centered. I introduced a woman and a black person wearing a hoody and tried to avoid stereotypical representations such as inserting the picture of the black person into the passage about crime in the US. Grizma (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hoodie&oldid=1204624010"