Talk:Fez (hat)

Early discussions

Text is inconsistent - one line claims Greek origin, the next line says Turkish. I've no Idea which, but it ain't both.

So true. These hats are in so many Italian paintings from at least the 12th century onward, I want proof/citation that Greek islands and Turks had the fez before the 12th century. Article clearly has confused the adopting of the hat in the Ottoman Empire with its origin. It's still popular in Italy until the 16th century at least. Visit the Louvre for more on this topic. Lead should at least mention its incredible popular among Italian nobles prior to the Ottoman Empire adopting it.--LeValley 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodard (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this be moved to Fez (hat), or is there another article of clothing known as a "fez"? Dysprosia 14:08, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

"About 980AD, the haj was interruped by the crusades, and the pilgrimages of those living west of the Nile were directed to Fez as to the Holy City."

The First Crusade didn't start until 1096, so I'm not sure how that works. Adam Bishop 14:48, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Not everything can be laid to the Franks. Better look into local conditions in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica ca 980 to see how the meghrib could become effectively cut off from Egypt and the Red Sea. An interestimg development. A reference would be good. User:Wetman.

---

Two miscellaneous fez facts, one rather unpleasant and one rather silly and commercial:

1. There is a nasty anti-Islamic myth (promulgated by, among others, Jack Chick) that the original fezzes were dyed with the blood of Christians. There is no truth to it.

2. You can get (cheap nylon) fezzes from Archie McPhee: http://www.mcphee.com/ or (expensive wool) fezzes from http://www.hatsinthebelfry.com/. --FOo 00:03, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

How do you know it's a myth? Sources please. It should be mentioned in the article, myth or not.

Fez in pop culture

Why is the fez often used in pop culture (e.g. Goofy and Ren Hoek wearing them) to denote relaxation? --Abdull 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a reference to Matt Groening's cartoon characters Akbar and Jeff? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Life_in_Hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.161.65 (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who

You Mean like in Doctor Who? Such as #SaveTheDay David Tennant http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/f7/0a/3ef70ab8595c0ee384474c9750cdf845.jpg

1963 https://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/p00v27md.jpg William Hartnell

2013 https://kitchenoverlord.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/doctor-who-fez.png Matt Smith

Alex Kingston http://images.amcnetworks.com/bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/files/2015/06/AlexKingston.jpg

--Timelord2067 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Name

I prefer the German method of naming the Fez: de:Fes (Kopfbedeckung). That translates Fez (headgear). That's my suggestion for the move. GilliamJF 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fez in the Balkans

The fez is also worn in Albania. There is no mention of this in the article. Albanians are not Slavs nor Bosniacs.

Pictures

There is a picture of a man sporting a fez on this page. I noticed the same picture on the page for "Bedouin." The captions seem to differ on the nationality of the young man. Which needs to be fixed? I'd infer the man was probably Moroccan.

I notcied the same, and followed the "fez" link from the Bedouin descriptor over here. Dunno where the model is from, but he's cute! (I apologize for the inappropriate comment) Scix 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He reminds me of my friend =) -- WiiVolve 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"checheya"

The article at one point starts using the word "checheya" without saying what it is. Could someone please add an explanation? --LakeHMM 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to be Chechnya. -- WiiVolve 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I found the original source of that paragraph. Apparently, the real website uses the same word. See: http://www.tarboosh.com/aboutWord.php. -- WiiVolve 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

picture vandalism?

Hi, jst looking at the third picture 'An old-fashioned Hyderabadi Muslim gentleman wearing an everyday sherwani and fez hat'. This guy is not wearing anything on his head. Following the picture it looks like there is some picture vandalism. The original picture is

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/archive/8/81/20051212174328%21Sherwani.jpg

I am not too sure how to fix this, because I am not too familiar with the handling of pictures in wikipedia. Can somebody take care of this ? 137.132.3.11 12:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. You might want to watch Image:Sherwani.jpg deniz^T_C 13:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek origin?

The origin of fez is the city Fes, Morocco as the Turkish Official Dictionary, Online Etymology dictionary and Nişanyan's etmyologic dictionary said.

Ruzgar 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in ancient Mesopotamia, around 1000-600 B.C. (the Later Babylonian and Assyrian period), the men wore a high brimless hat similar to the fez or tarbush of today. In Assyrian art, this hat sometimes is shown with broad bands of fabric hanging down the back. ("Survey of Historic Costume: Fourth Edition" by Phyllis G. Tortora and Keith Eubank). [RoseGirl]: 03:50, 20 April 2008

Fez is from Fez city in Morocco. How can you make such huge mistake ?

Until the 19th century it was the only source of Fez hats (also known as the tarboosh), before they began to be manufactured in France and Turkey; originally, the dye for the hats came from a berry that was grown outside the city, known as the Turkish kizziljiek or Greek akenia (Cornus mascula). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omansouri (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Most probably you are wrong. In any case, please provide the printed source of your statements. Please review the basic wikipedia policies about article content in wikipedia:Attribution. Mukadderat (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The hats may not be from Morocco originally, the word for them is. At least any etymological dictionary refers to the city of Fez. For some reason the etymology of tarboosh is given in this article, but the etymology of fez is not. That's a bit strange. Fransvannes (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it's named after but as an Anatolian native it's so clear me that it roots back somewhere in Anatolia, 3500 year old Komagene sculptures in Adiyaman wear fez-like headgears. Wiki turns in to a pseudo encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.88.221 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree the fez comes from Fez (Morroco) where it'a made until today

Your references : no on can check them The form is not really the same and I have one question : Why turkish called this hat Fez ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.127.175 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture caption

Why does the second picture have a caption saying the man is from Morocco? The picture description implies he's from Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.96.46 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This hat is from morocco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.254.195 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

History

This article is specifically about the fez, not about all brimless, more or less cylindrical or conical hats. The fez has a specific historical context, in particular, as headgear promulgated by Mahmut II in the 1820/30s. That headgear had its origins in North Africa (according to Reliable Sources). It would be interesting to learn more (from Reliable Sources) about its history in North Africa. Just noting that it looks like some hat in an ancient Assyrian frieze, or (even more vaguely) like the hat Mussolini wore, is not helpful. There needs to be some documented connection. --Macrakis (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Also the format of this source "Ruth Ellen Mandel, Cosmopolitan anxieties, 2008" is not detailed enough. Is she an authority about Middle Eastern fez?--Abuk SABUK (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the article text to show that the fez was often manufactured in Strakonice, Czech Republic (then part of the Austrian Empire). I saw an exhibit on this in the STrakonice Museum and the Wikipedia article on Strakonice identifies it as "a main production site for fez hats". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poniatowski (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

egyptian arbic

the word طربوش is used in all Arabic dialects not only in egyptian !! so don't write "egyptian arbic" sorry for my bad English i hope you understand what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.192.211.85 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Too many Images

This page seems to become a picture gallery for men wearing a fez. There are 6 essentially identical pictures. Why? I'm taking down one of the most irrelevant.Nickrz (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Knitted Woolen Fezzes

I have seen a man, among a group of Arabic-speaking people, wearing a red fez which, together with its black tassel, was apparently made of knitted wool rather than felt. Perhaps this is worn in winter in Muslim countries. Personal observations are not reliable sources, but such may exist for on knitted fezzes. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's ACE?

As of 2017-04-12 the section on "History" includes, "Because the area is defensible it has been occupied since Roman times, although the modern Islamic city [of Fez] was created by invading Muslims from two opposing settlements around 818 ACE."

What's ACE in this context?

The article on Fez, Morocco says, "Arab emigration to Fez, including 800 Andalusi families of Berber descent in 817–818 expelled after a rebellion against the Umayyads of Córdoba, Andalusia, ... gave the city its Arabic character." From the context, it's clear that this was 818 CE or AD.

I found one other use of ACE associated with a date that clearly refers to CE and only one use of AD. I'll change both ACE and AD to CE for consistency. If someone knows better, I trust they will take appropriate action. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentence that is incomprehensible

"Besides ṭarbūsh, the fez can also be defined in Arabic shashia (i)stanbuli."2600:1700:E1C0:F340:E5BC:ADD9:A126:1722 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (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:

• The Eleventh Doctor.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fez in the Levant

Moved from Talk:Stephan Hanna Stephan

Hi @Zero0000: any chance you have a copy of Geoffrey J. Morton's Just the Job: Some Experiences of a Colonial Policeman? The source below references it when pointing out that the British encouraged a reintroduction of the tarbush after the 1936-39 revolt. It seems odd to me, as whilst they presumably wanted to stamp out the "nationalist" sentiment of the keffiyeh, why would the British push people back to an Ottoman symbol? And it was more than a decade after Ataturk had outlawed it in Turkey.

Ted Swedenburg (8 January 2021). "Popular Memory and the Palestinian National Past". In William Roseberry and Jay O'Brien (ed.). Golden Ages, Dark Ages: Imagining the Past in Anthropology and History. Univ of California Press. pp. 170–. ISBN 978-0-520-32744-3. In August 1938, at the height of the insurgency, the rebel leadership commanded all townsmen to discard the tarbush and don the kufiya. The order was issued to help the rebels blend in when they entered the cities, but it was also a move in the wider social struggle… Official colonial sources, which noted that the fashion spread with "lightning rapidity," saw this more as the result of a conspiracy than as a manifestation of the spirit of unity (Palestine Post, 2 September 1938). Once the rebellion ended, the effendis of the town reassumed the tarnish, owing in part to British pressure (Morton 1957:98-100).

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @Overagainst: who wrote much of Morton's article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: "Just the Job" is in a non-lending library that I visit occasionally. I'll note this for my next visit. If you have Hughes, "Pacification of Palestine", there is an appendix Sartorial Wars starting page 396 which has more detail than I've seen elsewhere. Zero^talk 02:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, thank you. I have just read Hughes, which confirms the above: As British forces triumphed over rebel bands by late 1938, they won the sartorial war, helped by Christian merchants in Jerusalem who held a meeting to decide that they would open their shops on Fridays, an act forbidden by rebels, ‘and that they would no longer wear the Kaffiyah and Agal.’ The rebels put one Armenian Christian before a revolu- tionary court ‘for refusing to wear the Arab headdress. The rebels had ordered that non-Arab Christians do so, a demand that was understandably resisted by the Armenians and Greeks.’ By May 1939 the local press was reporting how the tarbush was returning to towns as the most popular form of headdress. Police CID noted the same, reporting how the: "tarbush and takieh [a close-fitting cap that can be worn under a tarbush and that was sometimes worn by the urban proletariat instead of a tarbush] are slowly reappearing in the place of the hatta and agel. In Jenin the townspeople were requested by the District Administration to revert to wearing the tarbush. Public response was encouraging following the example set by Government servants, and there were no untoward incidents. In Haifa notices were posted in the Suk threatening with death any person who wears a tarbush or incites the public to obey the orders of the Government."

Now I just need to find somewhere which tells the rest of the story. I imagine the Tarbush stopped being worn at some point in the 1940s, presumably due to the aftereffects of this class-war. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Palestine Gazette lists the tax for "tarbush cleaners and ironers" right up to 1947. That could be inertia, of course. But the full story is fascinating and needs an article. Also some color photos (the b/w photos hide the fact that a common color was red). Zero^talk 08:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

To editor Onceinawhile: Jewish men too. This discussion probably needs to move off this page. Maybe start a user-space draft? Zero^talk 08:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Opening of Seventh session of the Council of the Arab League - september 1947

@Zero0000: Per this photo, the Tarbush was still being used in the region as late as 1947. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fez, Morocco which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction

// The fez was a symbol not only of Ottoman affiliation but also of religious adherence to Islam.[16] It was also the main headdress for Christians and Jews during the Ottoman Empire.[17] //

Which is it? Islamic or no? 216.8.185.53 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. The contradiction is within citation 16, the "Encyclopedia of Global Religion", but poorly explained.. As a tertiary source - which itself uses non-specialist sources to support its article on this topic - it is not as meaningful as the other sources, particularly Quataert (1997) and Kahlenberg (2019).

I am inclined to replace the "Encyclopedia of Global Religion" with other better sources and remove the contradiction, unless it can be explained. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

@Hsjalizs: with regard to this revert:

You're breaking the very policy that you are citing. Where in that source does it say Nonetheless there is the strong likelihood that it was brought to the Ottoman Empire from North Africa, as the medieval Turkish historian Evliya Celebi describes Algerian men wearing it in the 17th century, thus supporting the Moroccan origin.?

You're also cherry picking a quote from a source. Here's exactly what it says: "In the same category as the tarboosh, can be placed the fez and the chechia, varying but slightly in shape. Chéchia is the name for the Berber tashashit or skullcap which has a tassel. The Turkish fez, usually red and tufted with or black tassel, got its name from Fez, chief city of Morocco. It was supposed that the dull crimson hue produced by the juice of a berry which grew in the vicinity could not be procured elsewhere, but in recent times the red cap was successfully made in France and Turkey. When the Turks conquered Constantinopole in 1453, they adopted, with modification, the byzantine costume including the Greek cap."

If you take what it and other cited sources say, you'll find that there is no reason to change the way the sourced information is presented.

In North Africa, home of a similar looking hat that was made locally (the Chechia), the Tarboosh was for obvious reasons known as "Chechia Stambouli". This is no different for Morocco where the Tarboosh/Fez was usually imported from Europe. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the source. The author is talking about 2 separate things. It states the Fez got its name from the Moroccan town of Fez. Yet you remove this statement. The statement of then talks about its production in modern France then goes to another topic of in 1453 the Ottomans adopted a Greek hat but the author does not call it Fez.

Also please do not remove reference from respected scholar Ekrem Buğra Ekinci which asserts it is not Greek in origin and provides proof of it in 17th century Algeria. Hsjalizs (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary is baseless and misleading since I didn't remove sourced information like you claim. What I did is remove the WP:OR that you introduced into the article and that you are yet to even acknowledge, let alone justify (my question above has gone unanswered for a reason). It also doesn't explain why you keep adding a named source that failed verification.

Since you latched onto a single source (that you are still misrepresenting), I now reworded the first sentence per what that source says and removed the cherry picked sentence/quote that you added to a source that is cited more than once (to support different content).

You're also giving undue weight to what a professor of history of Turkish Law and Islamic Law said on Daily Sabah. All the cited sources are making contradictory claims and we are treating all of them equally, though if we have to give the proper wight to one of them, then I'm sure that Andrea B. Rugh (who is an anthropologist and whose book is published by a University Press) will in this case be considered more reliable than Ekrem Buğra Ekinci.

1) The separate below section and the fact that Evliya Celebi did not visit Algeria is irrelevant to what I said above. 2) Your comment does not explain your revert or any of the concerns that I raised above. Please stop the disruptive editing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your OR claim, Ekrem Buğra Ekinci's source shows Evliya Celebi did indeed describe Algerian men wearing it. Therefore if you want to dispute this well respected scholar you should gain some credentials and publish your own article but Wikipedia is not the place for such OR which you are doing right now by unjustifiably removing Ekrem Buğra Ekinci source which claims that the Fez does not have a Greek origin. Hsjalizs (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

1) Once again, your totally unjustified blind revert and your comment failed to address any of the problems that I highlighted above. 2) I didn't remove a source as you falsely claim, what I did is address the UNDUE weight that you added through your [[editorializing and that I explained above. You are welcome to propose how what Ekrem Buğra Ekinci said should be formulated and seek consensus for its inclusion (since you're obviously familiar with Wikipedia's policies, then it's fair to assume that you're also familiar with this one). 3) Since I have taken what you said into consideration and changed the first sentence per what the sources say, why do you keep adding WP:OR to it? 5) I asked to not to add a cherry picked quote to a named source that is used to support multiple different claims: why do you insist on doing that and what is the purpose of that addition? 6) I tagged an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and left a lengthy explanation below, so why did you (as an involved editor) remove the tag? 6) Why do you keep adding a named ref that failed verification? M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your OR and removal of reputable scholar [1] Erkek Ekinci source. He clearly states Evliya Celebi wrote about Algerian men wearing the Fez and denies its alleged Greek origin, which is a claim made by debunked Orientalists. Hsjalizs (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote don't you understand? 13:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It is clear. Erkek is a legitimate scholar.

The only thing thing that is clear is your refusal to answer the questions, so here they are again:

• Why do you keep changing the properly sourced first sentence with WP:OR?
• I asked you not to add a cherry picked quote to a named source that is used to support multiple different claims and I even provided the full quote above: why do you insist on doing that and what is the purpose of that addition?
• I tagged an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and left a lengthy explanation below, so why do you (as an involved editor) keep removing the tag?
• Why do you keep adding a named ref that failed verification to the Moroccan claim?
• With regard to Ekrem Buğra Ekinci: I already explained to you that, through your editorializing, you're giving undue weight to what a non specialist (professor of history of Turkish Law and Islamic Law) said on Daily Sabah. I also asked you to propose how what he said should be formulated and seek consensus for its inclusion. What part of this don't you understand?

please stop censoring legitimate scholar Erkek Ekinci's source which is sound and legitimate. Also, your OR is not a legitimate reason to paint a distorted picture. Reality Fez is not of Greek origin according to the source. So please do not censore this source. The Fez hat has also been written about in the 17th century by Evliya Celebi. Hsjalizs (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Algerian claim

The Algerian claim by Ekrem Buğra Ekinci is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so I tagged it for now. Some the thing to consider while investigating this (I will repeat what I said above about the Chechia):

• In the Maghreb, home of a similar looking hat that was made locally (the Chechia), the Tarboosh was for obvious reasons known as "Chechia Stambouli". This is no different for Morocco where the Tarboosh/Fez was usually imported from Europe.
• Evliya Çelebi didn't visit Algeria and I couldn't find any mention of Algerians in his book. Admittedly, I haven't read all of it.
• The only link between the Tarboosh and North Africa that has been historically documented is with Tunisia (which has a long tradition of making Chechias). It's from there that the Turks and the Egyptians started to import their fezzes before setting up factories with the help of the Tunisians.
• Of all the known old depictions of North Africans throughout the centuries, not a single one shows men wearing the Tarboosh (contrary to the Chechia). M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

what you write is OR. Not that it matter but Evliya Celebi did indeed visit Algeria. Wikipedia is not for such OR. A reputed scholar states that the Fez is not of Greek origin therefore you have no right to remove this source. Hsjalizs (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

1) The OR policy does not apply to talk pages and the only editor here who violated the OR policy is you (see main discussion above). 2) Evliya Çelebi did not visit Algeria, he said so himself in his book. 3) This section was created separately from the above to address the DUBIOUS tag, so unless you have anything to say about any of the points that I raised, I suggest you refrain from cluttering it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reading primary sources like Evliya Celebi and making your own conclusions is OR and against WP:Primary Sources policies. The reputable historian Erkek is a secondary source and verifiable unlike your OR. Hsjalizs (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote are don't you understand? M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As clearly stated by the scholarly source of Erkek in the Sabah Daily, the Fez does not have a Greek origin and it has been described in the 17th century. Your OR and POV pushing cannot supercede a reputable scholar and credible source. Hsjalizs (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

References

April 2022

@Sl99dl: Nobody is questioning the painting, however the caption is 100% baseless original research and like I said, there is a difference between the Chechia (which was worn by the North Africans for centuries) and the Tarboosh (which was a later introduction and in the case of Morocco, imported from abroad). M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Evliya Çelebi historical account

Can someone tell me in which book Evliya Çelebi wrote that Algerian men wore red fezzes? 158.148.9.50 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

English standard

[2] A friendly notice to contributors. Please, don't convert the article into British English and don't add warning notices of such. The rule in Wikipedia that articles shouldn't be converted to other standards and in practice, only UK-related articles use the British standard. Thanks. --Esperfulmo (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Esperfulmo. FYI, I added that because when I came to the article it was using a mix of spelling standards (British and American). Wiki rules say that spelling should be consistent within an article, hence the addition of the notice, for information for future editors. (And as North Africa and the Ottoman Empire are /were closer to Britain, it made more sense to stick to that one.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoning.

1. Nearly all articles not related to the UK were initiated in American English. We ought to correct them to AmE if needed, not warn others to strictly use and switch to BrE.
2. The fact that the British empire had anything to do with parts of the region is really irrelevant. At the time, French was the main foreign language used, anyway.
3. For the record, users of English in the region mostly can't tell the difference between either standard and if they are aware, they normally opt to AmE.

Thanks. --Esperfulmo (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your note. So long as it's consistent, I don't mind. But don't we use the language template anyway, so that future editors know? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Moorish Science Temple of America

The fez was largely popularized in the United States by African Americans of the organization Moorish Science Temple of America. Members still wear the fez and this religious organization (not a fraternal org) should be mentioned in this article as well Sheik Way-El 20:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

December 2023

@Lute88: I'll repeat here what I said in the edit summary: how much coverage some content get in the article's body tend to decide how much weight (if any) it will get in the lead. Please read WP:LEAD and stop edit warring.

it is ref'ed, so - cover it. That's your job (using reliable sources instead of a blog) seeing as you're the one who's insisting on giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that appears to be loosely related to the primary topic (though, even that needs to be substantiated).

Please note that you are re-adding the same content that you added previously and which was subsequently reverted back in August (for a reason). M.Bitton (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

@Wizclifa: what makes you think that your addition improves the article?

I added information and use cases of the hat that were not well represented in the article you added irrelevant images to the lead section of the article. Please read WP:IUP and MOS:LEAD. M.Bitton (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)