Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 31[edit]

Hats[edit]

I didn't know who else to ask this question to, and so I thought I'd throw it out to the Wikipedia community: Do people wear REAL hats anymore? I never see anyone with a nice Akubra or Fedora, or any of the other types. Why and when did they go out of style, and does anyone wear them in the present day? I really miss the hats of old. They added a certain intangible sense of adventure and sophistication that is just not present in today's society. Unfortunately, I am too young to have experienced the hat wearing days. Would someone in a city look like a fool if he were to wear one of these types of hats, or is it still socially acceptable? When I am older, I would really like to wear some of these hats of old, but I'm just wondering if I would just be doing myself a disservice. I don't know what brought me to the topic, but I figured if anyone would know, it would be the Wikipedians!

Thanks! Mike MAP91 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head :) - the Queen (of the UK) wears hats regularly, though perhaps she is of old. However, I believe hats similar to hers are often seen at UK weddings and funerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.191.40 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeehaw. Come to Texas for hats. For ladies' hats "African American" churches usually give good shows. As for the hats you quoted. Unless you can pull them off with a certain "look", wait. Fashion tends to recycle trends. I think I saw a popstar wear one recently (Timber???) Not everyone looks good in a hat. If you do and can give it a modern twist (leather jacket and double wrap scarf maybe?), give it a try. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by 'real' hat too. These are resonably common in certain crowds and I personally consider them real hats (as does our article on hats) even if this article suggests there is a difference. Hats with a fuller brim are less common in general perhaps but are still quite common in certain places, e.g. among the Amish (and some Mormons/LDS followers too I think) and Cowboys+Cowgirls, where the functional usage is important (hot tropical ountries by people working under the sun, by more ordinary people when going out in the sun for extended periods especially tourists particularly Japanese ones), in certain occasions like the ones mentioned above and to some horse races ([1]) Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In country Australia you can still walk up to a hat-wearer and ask, Is that an Akubra you're wearing? because they do, as well as the high top 10-gallon type. Musicians and Daniel Johns of Silverchair does, another singer, Guy Sebastian constantly wears a compact brim hat; girls wear a British urchin type hat with a soft full crown and peak in winter. It depends on their peer group. The late Heath Ledger wore a hat. Maybe it's an Australian thing, though Michael Stipe of R.E.M. wore a hat. Some people wear "statement" hats as a personal badge. Racing men and other horsey types routinely wear hats. The cap's been putting cap-hair on people for decades. My guess is when hair was big for men and women, hats declined through association with their parents' generation and associations with formality. Now formality is good. If you miss hats, why not start them off again. You'll be in step with Indiana Jones whose variable Fedora is making a return. Hats are still being produced for both sexes. Unbelievably I still see artists wearing the beret, though the Indian cotton brimless hat is popular too. As for me? I'm female and take my Panama hat (copy) to the beach. Goes well with sawnoff jeans... Julia Rossi (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS The celebs I mentioned are hugely listed at the article for their preferred hat, the Trilby a tighter looking variant of the fed. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pratchett is usually to be seen wearing a hat.I often wear a leather Australian cowboy hat.My best friend wears a white, floppy cricket hat in the sun.The baseball cap is ubiquitous though.86.53.80.11 (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a note, whoever started their reply with with "Off the top of my head" - GREAT!, made me laugh -- that's how to write, people. Don't be like The Economist and hurt yourself stetching for the pun. The current issue of The Economist (right-hand side on the page) has the cover pun RECOIL (typeset just like that). Lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.122.226 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I thought of was the singer from Fall Out Boy, who is always wearing a baseball cap, but I suppose that doesn't count as a real hat. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people do. Let's see, looking in my closet, I've got about dozen fedoras and panamas, not to mention several cowboy hats and of course various caps. It's kinda difficult these days, though; few establishments take hat wearers into consideration, so there's rarely any place to hang ones hat, and no hat check girl, so we end up with hats on the floor under the table and such. And flying with a good hat? You sure don't want to put it in the overhead, because someone will be guaranteed to crush it with their giant carry-on full of bricks, so you sit with it in your lap, or, again, on the floor. Sartorial elegance these days seems to ignore haberdashery. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Everyone,

Thanks for all the info! I didn't expect it to be such a popular subject :). I was unaware of all the people who like to wear hats, especially the Australians. I am a big Terry Pratchett fan, and so it is nice to know that he wears a hat. I guess they are alive and well, just depends on your taste. I know Julia mentioned Indiana Jones...maybe the new movie will start a resurgence in hat-wearing. Who knows? I think my best bet will be to wear a hat when I travel, because when you're a tourist, I think people are more open to various styles. Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to visit Australia and bring home an Akubra as a wearable souvenir. The Panama hat is also an option. I guess JP wears hats as well, with the list of hats he gave. It's good to see that the style is being kept alive, although I don't see too many people in NYC or on Long Island wearing them. Would I have to wear certain types of clothing in order to look good in a hat, or is any type acceptable? I guess you'd need to coordinate the various items to look good. Someone said that fashion trends tend to recycle themselves, and so hopefully hats are on the upswing. Mike MAP91 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw the trends. If you like how you look in a hat, wear a hat. I got into it good hats in an odd way -- I was visiting my Mom for her 75th birthday party, and in the closet was a cheap white fedora. I tried it on for fun, looked at myself in the mirror, and said "Hey! That's your look!" A real good hat for traveling is a Borsalino crushable fedora; this one is my standard, and can take a lot of abuse. This page has a good assortment of Akubras, Borsalinos, and other travel hats. Panamas need to be handled properly, and tend to be sensitive to sweat -- my older ones are browner than they are white in places, and I keep one bright white Panama fedora for special occasions (and try not to perspire.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Herbert Johnson Panama straw is forty years old and still a distinguished item. I wouldn't wear it in the rain or after September, though, and I live in New York. It's all in the context. --Wetman (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the trends don't really matter if you like the way you look in certain hats. I'll be looking through the websites to see which ones fit me best. That is a very funny story JP...something to talk about around the dinner table for sure :). Sounds like a very cool hat Wetman. Now I just have to find the style of hat that fits me. I am thinking maybe Akubra or Fedora, or perhaps Panama. How would I go about figuring out my hat size?

Mike MAP91 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can size your head yourself: [2]. But I see you're near NYC; there are tons of hatters there; just Google search for "new york" hatter. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hat sizes seem to be the circumference divided by pi, which would be the diameter if heads were of circular cross section, but they generally aren't. Edison (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have a dozen hats here. A nice fedora for more formal wear, some similar for every day and camping use; straw hats for camping, boating and a ratty one for yardwork. The only baseball caps I have are Scout caps I don't wear much (the new one looks nice though) and a couple of patrol caps in the attic. And yes, a brilliant white Panama is a thing of beauty. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a personal opinion, the world was a better place in many ways back when men wore hats. Perhaps they had cooler heads. I love old police procedural shows like Dragnet, where the police tell the suspect "Get your hat. We're going downtown" as if he could not enter an interrogation room sans chapeau. Detectives, reporters, and gangsters all seemed more in style wearing hats, and I'm not referring to cowboy hats or baseball caps. Edison (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. For a nice little history of the demise of the hat, I find Hatless Jack: The President, the Fedora, and the History of American Style (ISBN 0452285232) quite amusing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a style note, creative types combine non-corresponding clothes such as a long black scarf or necktie knotted at the neck with a long sleeved t-shirt and jeans, with or without a dark blazer; if you want a modified history look, there's Timothy Hutton in A Nero Wolfe Mystery. I like your idea of constructing your hat look as a tourist first because it figures that being a tourist you're freer in lots of ways. Remember you can get crush-resistant Panamas... </:-) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the tips everyone! I do agree with Edison about the world being a better place when hats were around. I think everything was just more proper and formal. It did have a certain air of dignity and sophistication. That seems like a very interesting book JP. I'll look into purchasing it. Thanks for your support of my "tourist idea" Julia. Those are exactly the lines I was thinking on when I decided it would be a good idea. Maybe a nice crush-resistant Panama, a Hawaiian shirt, and a lemonade and I'll be all set to go :).

Mike MAP91 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1969 White Paper[edit]

Hello. Does the 1969 White Paper have a metaphoric meaning? I know that white papers denote reports that help politicians make decisions. I was wondering whether the word 'White' in the phrase '1969 White Paper' meant the assimilation of Canadian Aboriginals into the mainstream white society. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you implied yourself, white paper is a generic term for this sort of document not matter what its subject; so the fact that this one was on a racial topic is just a coincidence. I've added a link in the article. --Anonymous, edited 05:45 UTC, May 31, 2008.

Why was the 1969 White Paper not prefixed with Royal Commission instead? --Mayfare (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't produced by a Royal Commission. This link from the Parliament of Canada web site provides a general definition of white papers in the Canadian system. In brief, they are "official documents presented by Ministers of the Crown which state and explain the government's policy on a certain issue." They are typically produced by the Department in question. A Royal Commission is quite a different beast; it is an independent body charged with making a wide-ranging enquiry into something and reporting to the government. Royal Commissions produce reports, not white papers. - Eron^Talk 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Japan deport illegal immigrants?[edit]

Hello I hope you can help me. My Filipino uncle is in Japan... illegally. He wants to have a work but he doesn't know if he will be deported when they know he's illegally. Does Japan deport illegal immigrants? Thanks and God Bless You Forever 190.49.95.22 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do of course and from what I've heard they are quite zealous about it. Fribbler (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DNC delegate hearing[edit]

I just watched the DNC Rules Committee hearing today, and I have a question about whether the right committee was conducting the hearing. Isn't it the job of the Credentials Committee, not the Rules Committee, to discuss issues with delegates?--Dem393 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee is responsible for determining how many delegates each state gets in the first place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, how can Clinton bring the matter up to the Credentials Committee if she is unsatisfied with today's results?--Dem393 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been trying to figure that out myself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules Committee is a committee of the Democratic National Committee. The Credentials Committee is an as-yet nonexistent committee of the Democratic National Convention. Corvus cornix_talk 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? They do already have committee chairs (since January). There are 186 members. Howard Dean chose 35 of them; the states choose the rest. So though they haven't met yet, they do seem to exist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't meet till the beginning of July. Corvus cornix_talk 19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]