Talk:Phat pants

PHAT PANTS ARE WORN BY GUYS, NOT GIRLS - THEY ARE A GUYS FASHION NOT GIRLS. ==
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.63.88 (talk • contribs).

If you go to certain clubs in Australia they are filled with females wearing phat pants. If you check out the second link at the bottom of the article it has a female in phats. User:kobo 14:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying that Guys dont wear them, I think you will find that guys do wear them. Guys ones are much baggier than females, guys ones drag all over the floor and completely cover the shoes. Girld dont even cover the shoes.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.49.184 (talk • contribs).

1. Guys wear phat pants. This can be shown by following link 1 http://caseyporn.com/blog/archives/000251.html (Guy Talking About His Phat Pants)
2. Girls also wear phat pants. This can be shown by following the links on the page such as link 2 http://www.theage.com.au/news/fashion/rave-reviews/2005/08/26/1124563029403.html (Article in Australian newspaper The Age talking about phat pants) and link 3 http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=1059 (Article in Metro Times of Detroit with women talking about clothing, including their phatties.)
3. Phat pants are a distinct cut as described in the first line of the article "a style of pants that are fitted at the hips and widen all the way down to the ground enclosing the feet due to their width. " This cut can be seen in photos in link 1 and link 4 http://www.psydeways.com/ (Website of store selling phat pants).
4. Phat pants are still the same distinct cut whether worn by a guy or a girl as shown in the photo gallery of the store in link 5 http://www.psydeways.com/photos/ (Photo gallery of store selling phat pants. Contains phat pants for guys and girls and shows they are the same distinct cut.)
5. Pants that are fitted from the hips to the knees then widen out from the knees to the feet are called flares as described in the "not to be confused with" section.

Tiggertrouble 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Pants

I think this page should be merged with Pants - could be expanded on pants page User:SimontheRaver

• Support Addhoc 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support User:Biscuit_brain 11:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Against This seems like a worthwhile page, considering these are not run-of-the-mill pants. -Dwinetsk 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Against The merge proposal was posted by a sock puppet of a vandalistic editor. The support was posted by an account that then appeared making the same edits to the same pages with the same spelling mistakes. I'm suprised that the advocate (Addhoc) who confirmed that SimontheRaver was a sock puppet of a vandal added a support, but hey we all make mistakes... Phat pants are a very different creature to generic 'pants'. Phat pants are of high importance to ravers and those in the electronic dance music scene. The article is also beneficial for people who do not know or have not heard of Phat pants to look up and be informed. This article does get a lot of traffic, and over time has had a number of people who have added contributions. Tiggertrouble 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Picture

I am a little annoyed that it wasn't discussed that the other picture was going to be put up - as soon as I put up a gender-free one it is removed. Now, I am not screwed in the head like Simon the Raver and his many other names, but I do take offense to an issue like the one I have brought up, the image I uploaded is gender-neutral and should be left as it is. User:Bisuit brain 21st November 2006.

User:Bisuit brain the only edits you have been making are destructive edits in the same manner and to the same page as the vandalistic editor User:Simon the Raver who you claim not to be. You have lied about the source of an image in order to justify removing it, claiming there was no source when it's source was clearly stated and the image was released into the public domain. You are also insisting that any image that happens to have a female in it must be replaced by a picture with a male in it in the interest of "gender neutrality". Please stop lying, attempting to confuse things by making edits that go around in a circle, and unnecessarily pushing your gender isssues. Tiggertrouble 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) shhsh llsoodid regan P.S. let me state again both females and males wear phat pants.

phat pants boy forums are a forum for sick people. do not go there. Italic text

User:Bisuit brain the picture you posted has been deleted on [14 December 2006] by a user who stated "photo of me removed, some sicko has been stalking me". You have also taken a photo I captured of a female friend of mine and reuploaded it claiming you are the author of the photo and claiming the photo is of a male. Tiggertrouble 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivity cleanup

I'm removing the following text as it is highly subjective and anecdotal. I could see there being some substance to what is being said, but I'm not really qualified (or motivated) to extract it and to do the research to find published literature on the topic"

It is common at a typical rave to hear "I saw you at a party last week, I know those pants!".
...the brighter the better. This gives the effect, especially at parties, of what could be considered a super hero uniform: each one being colourful and unique. The added colour helps raise the party vibe.
...water bottles, chupa chups, and whatever else may be necessary to get them through a weekend of partying
Ravers will buy the most original pair of phat pants that they can lay their hands on, as they are deemed to be a form of self expression. 'Phatties' can vary in cost from $80 to $400, with many ravers happy to spend such an extravagant price on one pair of pants as long as they are good quality and will last many hours of stomping and dancing at indoor as well as outdoor events. Some ravers even class themselves as 'elite' or 'hardcore' if they own several pairs of phats. This is not an attitude fostered by most ravers however. There are many ravers in Australia that feel that one cannot do justice to their phats unless they are worn out in public on a shopping trip or similar activities.

...and are usually brightly coloured webbing with a reflective strip sewn down the middle.

Are the 'D' clips referred to herein carabiners? -Dwinetsk 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. Technically though, they are often just metal 'O' rings. In Melbourne, Australia it's very common for phat pants to have these reflective braces with the metal ring. At parties about a third to a half of people wearing phat pants will have them. And they are always brightly coloured, covered in reflective material.

On the topic of published literature, if you mean books and studies, this is something which is extremely difficult. Even though it has been around for 18 years now in it's current form it is still a very ignored phenomenon. It doesn't exist in mainstream culture. However there is direct documentary evidence such as photos which can be referenced.

On the parts removed... "It is common " is anecdotal.

"the brighter the better" some of that is subjective, however I think it's important to have information about the fact that people's phat pants will be bright, colourful, and distinct. as an example these are from a personal website http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/pharmacy/traffic/IMG_0018.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/bass_station/01-09-2006/P40954.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/bass_station/01-09-2006/P40939.JPG

"water bottles, chupa chups," I think replacing with accoutremonts doesn't benefit the article. What are a raver's accoutremonts? Water bottles and chupa chups. It's informative and slightly humorous. In the same way you could describe a coin pocket in a pair of jeans as holding "generic things" but it is more apt and informative to state it can be used for holding change.

"Ravers will buy" is fairly subjective. It depends on the person.

"and are usually brightly coloured webbing " is factual. They are almost always bright coloured webbing covered in reflective material and can be shown in photos taken at parties such as http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/pharmacy/metro_12-03-2006/IMG_0140.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/pharmacy/metro_12-03-2006/IMG_0089.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/bass_station/01-09-2006/P40954.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/pharmacy/traffic/IMG_0014.JPG http://www.ravejunkie.com.au/pharmacy/traffic/IMG_0017.JPG

Good to see other people are taking an interest in the article and rave culture in general.

Tiggertrouble 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask a question Tiggertrouble, you seem to be adament to try and make this article, all feminine based - enlarging the image of an apparent 'Girl' wearing phatties - removing any male references, but leaving the references to everything female based in the artcile. Phat pants are worn buy males too you know. --88.108.70.203 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point anon user, but you are ending up as bad as Tiggertrouble, you both seem adament that your views are both right when in essence they are totally wrong. Why don't you both work together to produce a fantastic article, you could as you both have knowledge on this subject. It does seem to me that Tiggertrouble is trying to course some trouble, by making the article feminist when its a unisex article, and with you trying to make it masculine its just resulting in an edit war.

Tiggertrouble - stop trying to make a female-based article. Anon User - stop trying to make a male-based article.

It's a Neutral Gender Subject.

Now with this stupid picture rearranging stop it - or I will report you both to wiki for vandalisation. --SteelAvenger 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: 13 February 2007:

I have now warned you twice User:Tiggertrouble for your non-constructive comments, and after an allegation that I am someone who I am not - have reported you to Wikipedia for your comments, please see your warning on your talk page. --SteelAvenger 11:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Balanced

I have removed the images that are gender related and just left a generic one up, if the page is vandalised again, I will be reporting the culperate ro Wiki. --SteelAvenger 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalistic editing by User:SteelAvenger

User:SteelAvenger you have removed numerous mentions of anything or anyone female while leaving in and adding new mentions of male. [[1]] You have also impropery removed licensing on the image of a female wearing phat pants and attempted to delete this photo. [[2]] You have been making identical destructive edits [[3]] as the "other" vandalistic editor who you claim not to be. I have placed a warning on your talk page [[4]].

Vandalistic editing by User:Tiggertrouble

Well where do I start with you Tiggertrouble, trying to move the image of a man wearing phatties to a completely different section of the article, and at one point removing the image totally. Editing the bottom so the words 'Image shows girl in phat pants' I add an link stating another article shows a male in phat pants and you remove it. Phat pants are Unisex, so why have a sole image of one gender wearing phatties, have I gone round removing the image of the Girl in Phat pants to the bottom and putting the image of the Boy on top, no. I have gender-balanced the article not making it in favor of a male or a femlale, by using a generic picture of a sole-image of phat pants. Too many images clutter up the article. You have also removed vandal warnings from your user page, which is in-breach of wikipedia rules, and I have reported you to Wikipedia for that. You are making destructive edits to this page which is now in accordance with wikipedia for being gender neutral. Please see vandal warning on your talk page. --SteelAvenger 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to User:SteelAvenger

Your continued lies about things that have not happened are not only unwelcome but have become intimidation and harrassment.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phat_pants&diff=next&oldid=107692853 Picture of a female changed by you User:SteelAvenger to say it is incorrectly a picture of a boy. External link at bottom of article changed so that an article in which women talk about their clothing is changed to say it is an article with people talking about their clothing. External link at bottom that says "guy talking about his phat pants" however, is not changed.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phat_pants&diff=next&oldid=109398396 I have not been removing mentions of male. Also see above. Additionally see talk page where I have repeatedly listed that girls and guys wear phat pants.

3. Better, clearer picture is at the top of the article so people can see what the article is about. A reasonable person with no gender issues would not have a problem with there being a really good photo of a human being (regardless of their gender) wearing a pair of pants. If you insist on there being one boy for every girl, then keep the lower quality picture which is of a male. The only problems are the ones that you are creating.

It is true that at some point a picture of a male was removed, leaving only a picture of a female. The picture was uploaded with the caption "I own the pic and publish it to the domain.",
but it turns out...
the picture was deleted on [14 December 2006] by a user who stated "photo of me removed, some sicko has been stalking me".
This picture was posted by User:Bisuit brain another name that appeared pushing the same gender issues, editing with the same grammar and spelling mistakes, on the same pages. However you claim not to be them and then start making identical threats.
This username was one of several under investigation of being a sock puppet.
An example of an edit that both User:Biscuit brain and User:SteelAvenger have made is taking a photo I uploaded of a female friend of mine and changing it to say it is of a male. [Biscuit brain here] and [SteelAvenger here].

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SteelAvenger You have not reported me to wikipedia as a vandal. This is yet another threatening lie on your part deliberately designed to harrass and intimidate me.

Tiggertrouble 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These ARE the mid '00s

"Phat pants were adorned by ravers in the early to mid '90s and can still be seen in the early to mid '00s and even today."

I just realized

This article is ripped from a website. Note the pro-weed comment at the bottom.

Difference with bell bottoms

How do phat pants differ from bell bottoms? They look the same to me. Bell bottoms can also be made out of denim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.8.46 (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirection with Tripp NYC

I agree that Tripp should have its own page. Tripp NYC is its own company that does make pants that could be construed as Phat Pants, but they make other kinds of pants, jackets, shirts, and other accessories. Having "Tripp NYC" redirect to Phat Pants just doesn't make sense. -12:50 PM EST, 14 Apr 09. [Unsigned]

Tripp is a brand that makes phat pants, and are worn heavily in the punk, goth, and metal communities. They aren't as dead as this article implies. Wouldn't it be wiser to have Tripp NYC have an article or a section, as there was absolutly no mention of it in this one. 63.22.254.183 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what Tripp NYC makes is closer related to Bondage pants than Phat pants, and if Tripp NYC is going to redirect anywhere (which it shouldn't, It should have it's own page, since it is a company, and actually has information on it.) it needs to redirect to the page Bondage pants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.66.89 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tripp is a BUSINESS not a fashion; it gets its own page. Plus, it has accesories and regular jeans; this should not be construed into one product that DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL COMPANY. I think certain people would actually like to learn about the COMPANY not one product made by them. --DMP47 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Main Description Revision

It says "Phat pants or phatties worn by (young) males" When phats are actually unisex. It also states that they are "usually made of denim". When the most common material to make phats out of is "cotton-drill". They are also often associated with shuffling or "The Melbourne Shuffle". As mostly "Shufflers" wear phat pants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.101.73 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)