text:
Bobbie Gentry

Bobbie Gentry (born Roberta Lee Streeter; July 27, 1942) is a retired American singer-songwriter. She was one of the first female artists in America to compose and produce her own material.

Gentry rose to international fame in 1967 with her Southern Gothic narrative "Ode to Billie Joe". The track spent four weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was third in the Billboard year-end chart of 1967, earning Gentry Grammy awards for Best New Artist and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance in 1968.

Gentry charted 11 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 and four singles on the United Kingdom Top 40. Her album Fancy brought her a Grammy nomination for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance. After her first albums, she had a successful run of variety shows on the Las Vegas Strip. In the late 1970s, Gentry lost interest in performing, and retired from the music industry. News reports conflict on the subject of where she lives.

Early life
Gentry was born Roberta Lee Streeter on July 27, 1942, near Woodland in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, to Ruby Lee (née Shipman; November 28, 1920 – April 2, 1989) and Robert Harrison Streeter. When her parents divorced shortly after her birth, her mother moved to California, leaving Gentry to be raised on a farm by her paternal grandparents. She grew up without electricity or plumbing. Her grandmother traded one of the family's milk cows for a neighbor's piano, and, at age seven, Gentry composed her first song, "My Dog Sergeant Is a Good Dog". Gentry lived in Greenwood, Mississippi, with her father for a few years and learned to play the guitar and banjo.

At age 13, Gentry moved to Palm Springs, California, to live with her then-remarried mother. They performed as a duo, Ruby and Bobbie Meyers, for a short time. Gentry took her stage name from the 1952 film Ruby Gentry, which she had seen on television. In the film, Ruby (played by Jennifer Jones) was a poor but beautiful girl from the backwoods, who ended up marrying the town tycoon.

After graduating from high school, Gentry moved to Los Angeles to enter UCLA as a philosophy major. She supported herself with clerical jobs, occasionally performing at nightclubs and country clubs, and when she appeared in a revue at Les Folies Bergeres nightclub in Las Vegas, Bob Hope encouraged her to keep performing. She worked as a fashion model, and on June 29, 1962, United Press International circulated a wire photo of Gentry that included Cheryl Crane, daughter of Lana Turner. Gentry transferred to the Los Angeles Conservatory of Music, where she took classes in composition, music theory and arranging. While attending a Jody Reynolds concert at a club in Palm Springs in 1966, Gentry asked if she could sit in on one of Reynolds' recording sessions. This led to an invitation to sing on two duets with Reynolds: "Stranger in the Mirror" and "Requiem for Love". The two songs were released in September 1966 by Titan Records, but failed to chart.

1967: Debut
Gentry recorded a demo at Whitney Recording Studio in Glendale, California, in February and March 1967. Her sole ambition originally was to write songs to sell to other artists, telling The Washington Post that she only sang on the recording of "Ode to Billie Joe" that she took to Capitol because it was cheaper than hiring someone to sing it.

Gentry signed with Capitol Records on June 23, 1967, where staff producer Kelly Gordon would produce Ode to Billie Joe as his first full-length album for the label. But it was "Mississippi Delta", intended as the A-side of her first single, that initially got Gentry signed. Her original demo of "Mississippi Delta" was the version issued, but "Ode to Billie Joe" acquired a string arrangement by Jimmie Haskell, dubbed onto the original recording at Capitol. The day after the string session, Capitol's A&R team decided to make "Ode to Billie Joe" the A-side. The single was released on July 10, 1967. It would spend four weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 and, on the year-end chart, place number three. The single reached number eight on the Billboard Black Singles chart and number 13 on the UK Top 40. It sold more than 3,000,000 copies worldwide. In 2001, Rolling Stone magazine listed "Ode to Billie Joe" among the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Following the single's success, the producers quickly assembled the rest of the album from the 12 demos Gentry had recorded, completing overdubs in a matter of days. The result was a unique combination of blues, folk, and jazz elements that rounded out Gentry's recollections of her home, coming across more as a concept album than a hastily assembled collection of songs. Capitol pre-ordered 500,000 copies—the largest pressing of a debut album in the label's prior history. The album hit stores within a month of pressing, on August 21. Ode to Billie Joe replaced the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band at the top of the Billboard 200 and reached No. 5 on the Billboard Black Albums chart. Gentry won three Grammy Awards in 1967, including Best New Artist and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance. She was also named the Academy of Country Music's Most Promising Female Vocalist.

1968: The Delta Sweete, Local Gentry and Glen Campbell
In February 1968, Gentry took part in the Italian Song Festival in Sanremo competition, as one of two performers of "La Siepe" by Vito Pallavicini and Massara. Capitol released the song concurrently as a single, backed by another Italian tune also recorded by Gentry, "La Città è Grande" by Pallavicini and De Ponti.

Gentry's second album, The Delta Sweete, was released in February 1968. In its musical ambition, the album represented a decisive step beyond her debut. This concept album drew inspiration from Gentry's Mississippi Delta roots. Most of its sound comes from Gentry, who played almost every instrument on its tracks, including piano, guitar, banjo, bass, and vibes. Nonetheless, Capitol's Kelly Gordon, producer of Gentry's first work for the label, also received the entire producing credit for The Delta Sweete. The album earned Gentry two more entries on the Billboard Hot 100. "Okolona River Bottom Band" peaked at number 54, while her cover of "Louisiana Man" made it to number 100. Although the album failed to match the success of its predecessor, only reaching number 132 on the Billboard 200, critics have called it one of the unacclaimed masterpieces of the 1960s.

Following The Delta Sweete, Capitol released Gentry's third album, Local Gentry, in August 1968. It failed to appear on any of the Billboard album charts, but did peak at number 83 on the Cashbox Top 100 Albums chart.

In September, one month after the release of Local Gentry, the artist's third album of 1968 came out. Bobbie Gentry and Glen Campbell features duets with label mate Glen Campbell. Their chemistry made the partnership a great success. The album peaked at number 11 on the Billboard Top LP's chart and number one on the Top Country LP's chart. It was also certified Gold by the RIAA and earned Gentry and Campbell the Academy of Country Music award for Album of the Year. Gentry was also nominated for Top Female Vocalist.

Bobbie Gentry (TV series)
In 1968, Gentry was invited to host her own variety show on BBC Two in the UK, making her the first female songwriter to front a series on the channel. The initial six episodes of Bobbie Gentry were broadcast weekly from July 13 to August 17, 1968. It featured musicians from the Mississippi countryside, as well as guests such as Donovan, the Hollies, Glen Campbell, James Taylor, Randy Newman, Elton John, Alan Price, Billy Preston, and Pan's People. Two further, six-episode series were broadcast from June 18 to July 23 1969; and February 1 to March 15, 1971.

The series was produced and directed by Stanley Dorfman, who was engaged to be married to Gentry in 1970, and credited Gentry as his co-director. Dorfman told author Tara Murtha, "After a few episodes, she was pretty much co-directing the show because she had such great ideas. [But] the BBC wouldn't have it, wouldn't have an artist credited as a director or producer, so the credit went to me as producer and director. But she definitely contributed as much as I did creatively to the show. She was just full of ideas." John Cameron, the music arranger for her BBC shows noted, "She was pretty much the alpha female in the group – [producer] Stanley Dorfman's assistant Kate and choreographer Flick Colby were the only other prominent females in the crew. She certainly didn't have a support group like Dusty [Springfield]. "The series garnered widespread recognition and was syndicated globally.

All but five of the 18 episodes were wiped by the BBC and those surviving were rebroadcast for the first time in November 2023 on BBC Four.

From 1968–1971, while in the UK recording her own series, Gentry also made numerous guest appearances on other BBC shows. These included a one-hour special for the In Concert series, broadcast on October 30, 1970; and Glen Campbell's own BBC Two special, broadcast May 6, 1970.

1969: Touch 'Em with Love
Gentry's fifth album, Touch 'Em with Love, came out in July 1969. It marked a transition in her career: In an attempt to re-brand Gentry as a blue-eyed soul singer, it featured fewer self-penned regional songs and more systematically chosen cover songs. Recorded in Nashville and produced by Kelso Herston, the album's 10 tracks included only two originals. The title track was released as the first single, but it failed to go above number 113 on Billboard's Bubbling Under the Hot 100 chart and only reached number 164 on the Billboard 200. Gentry's cover of "I'll Never Fall in Love Again" was released as the second single in the UK, where it became a number one hit on the UK Singles Chart. The album reached number 21 on the UK Albums Chart.

In 1969, Gentry taped four television specials for Canadian television station CFTO-TV Toronto for North American syndication.

1970: Fancy
April 1970 saw the release of Fancy, Gentry's sixth album in three years. Like 1969's Touch 'Em with Love, it contains only covers, except for the artist's self-penned title track. Most of the album was recorded at Fame Recording Studios in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, with producer Rick Hall. "Fancy", released as the album's first single, became Gentry's biggest hit since "Ode to Billie Joe", peaking within the top 40 in the US, Canada, and Australia. Of the song Gentry herself said, "Fancy is my strongest statement for women's lib, if you really listen to it. I agree wholeheartedly with that movement and all the serious issues that [it stands] for—equality, equal pay, day care centers, and abortion rights," she explained to After Dark magazine in 1974.

The album's first European single, a cover of "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head", peaked at number 40. The album's second North American single, "He Made a Woman Out of Me", did not reach the same heights as "Fancy", reaching only number 71 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Gentry would be nominated for Best Contemporary Vocal Performance, Female at the 13th Annual Grammy Awards.

1971–1974: Patchwork and departure from Capitol

Gentry released Patchwork in April 1971. It has been described as a collection of short stories in song, ranging from country and pop to blues, stitched together with cinematic interludes to form a cohesive whole. Patchwork was Gentry's first entirely self-written and -produced album. Its first single: "But I Can't Get Back", was a small hit, peaking at number 37 on the Billboard Top 40 Easy Listening chart and number 93 in Canada. Gentry would release one more single for Capitol in August 1972, "The Girl from Cincinnati".

Around the time Patchwork was released, the entire executive board that had been at Capitol throughout Gentry's career was fired. A major restructuring at Capitol took place as parent company EMI tried to seize back control and rekindle the label's dwindling profits. This saw the artist roster slashed from 247 to 81 alongside extensive cuts to production and marketing budgets. With none of the executive board left that had known and worked with her, negotiations stalled over the renewal terms of Gentry's contract, and this failure to reach an agreement with Capitol created a stalemate. Since Gentry was unwilling to release an album with Capitol on the terms offered, she found herself unable to release an album on another label, meaning she was left with no choice but to wait out the remaining option period of her contract.

In 1974, she hosted a summer replacement variety show on CBS called The Bobbie Gentry Happiness Hour. The show, which was her version of Glen Campbell's hit series The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour, was not renewed for a full season.

1975–1977: Post-Capitol recordings
In 1975, Gentry wrote and performed "Another Place, Another Time" for writer-director Max Baer, Jr.'s film Macon County Line. Following the film's success the song was released on a promotional 7-inch single. In 1976, Baer directed the feature film Ode to Billy Joe, based on Gentry's hit song and starring Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor. In the movie, the mystery of the title character's suicide is revealed as a part of the conflict between his love for Bobbie Lee Hartley and a drunken homosexual experience. Warner Bros. Records released a soundtrack of the score by Michel Legrand, including a re-recorded version of "Ode to Billie Joe", re-titled "Ode to Billy Joe" to match the film's title, with Gentry stating that the original spelling was an error. Warner Bros. released the new version as a single and Capitol re-released the original version, which gave Gentry two concurrent chart placings with the same song. The re-recording would go on to be Gentry's last single to chart, meaning that her first and last chart entries are the same song.

In 1977 Gentry reunited with producer Rick Hall in Muscle Shoals to record an album for the Curb Records division of Warner Bros. Records (unlike Gentry's 1969 Fancy album, Gentry's 1977 recording sessions with Hall were not at his FAME Studios but at the nearby Music Mill Studio). After an advance single: "Steal Away", had an unsuccessful February 1978 release, the album was shelved. "Steal Away" - a remake of the 1964 Jimmy Hughes hit which had inaugurated FAME Studios’ hit streak - had as its B-side: the Patti Dahlstrom composition "He Did Me Wrong, But He Did It Right": these tracks plus three additional tracks from Gentry's 1977 recording sessions: "Slow Cookin'" (written by Abby Marable), "Sweet Country" (written by Gentry), and "Thunder in the Afternoon" (written by Mac Davis, Rita Grimm and Yvonne Norman), would be released on the 1992 European compilation album Ode to Billie Joe.

1978–1982: Final projects before retirement
Gentry appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson on Christmas Day 1978. She attended the Best of Vegas Awards on March 21, 1980.

On May 10, 1981, Gentry was one of many celebrity guests to take part in An All-Star Salute to Mother's Day. During the television special she performed "Mama, a Rainbow" from the musical Minnie's Boys for her mother who was seated in the audience. This would prove to be Gentry's final public performance.

The last time Gentry appeared in public was when she attended the Academy of Country Music Awards on April 30, 1982. Since that time, she has not recorded, performed or been interviewed. One 2016 news report stated that Gentry lived in a gated community near Memphis, Tennessee. According to another report the same year, Gentry lived in a gated community in Los Angeles.

Personal life
Gentry married casino magnate Bill Harrah on December 18, 1969. The couple divorced April 16, 1970.

On May 16, 1970, it was announced that Gentry was engaged to be married to Stanley Dorfman, the producer and director of her BBC television series Bobbie Gentry. She married Thomas R. Toutant on August 17, 1976, and she divorced him on August 1, 1978.

On October 15, 1978, Gentry married singer and comedian Jim Stafford with whom she had a son, Tyler Gentry Stafford. Gentry and Stafford divorced in September 1980.

Gentry also had partial ownership of the Phoenix Suns NBA team from the team's inception in 1968 until 1987.

Legacy
Gentry charted 11 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 and four singles in the Top 40 of the UK Singles Chart.

Beth Orton recorded a song titled "Bobby Gentry" featured on her The Other Side of Daybreak album. Jill Sobule recorded "Where Is Bobbie Gentry?" for her album California Years. Gentry's 1969 composition "Fancy" provided a top 10 country hit for Reba McEntire in 1991.

In 2011, producer and singer Joe Henry said Gentry's writing influenced him early in his life.

In September 2018, an eight-disc box set, titled The Girl from Chickasaw County: The Complete Capitol Masters, featuring all of Gentry's recordings for Capitol was released.

In February 2019, Mercury Rev released Bobbie Gentry's the Delta Sweete Revisited, which was called a "reimagining of Bobbie Gentry's forgotten masterpiece".

In 2020, she was inducted into the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame.

Discography

 * Ode to Billie Joe (1967)
 * The Delta Sweete (1968)
 * Local Gentry (1968)
 * Bobbie Gentry and Glen Campbell (with Glen Campbell) (1968)
 * Touch 'Em with Love (1969)
 * Fancy (1970)
 * Patchwork (1971)

title: Bobbie Gentry


text:
Sumptuary law

Sumptuary laws (from Latin sūmptuāriae lēgēs) are laws that try to regulate consumption. Black's Law Dictionary defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc." Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person's social rank.

Societies have used sumptuary laws for a variety of purposes. They were used to try to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They made it easy to identify social rank and privilege, and as such could be used for social discrimination and to stabilize social hierarchies. They could also be used to prevent, or at least reduce opportunities for political bribery and corruption.

The laws often prevented commoners from imitating the appearance of aristocrats, and could be used to stigmatize disfavoured groups. In Late Medieval cities, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie. Bourgeois subjects appearing to be as wealthy as or wealthier than the ruling nobility could undermine the nobility's presentation of themselves as powerful, legitimate rulers. This could call into question their ability to control and defend their fief, thus inspiring traitors and rebels. Such laws continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.

According to historian Lorraine Daston, sumptuary laws "furnish the historian of rules with an extreme case of rule failure," as such laws frequently failed to reduce excess and may even have exacerbated excess. Sumptuary laws were often revisable regulations rather than stable laws, as governing authorities sought to prohibit the latest rebellious or extravagant fashions.

Ancient Greece
The seventh-century BC law-text of Locrians by Zaleucus, the first written 'law code' in Ancient Greece, stipulated:

"A free-born woman may not be accompanied by more than one female slave, unless she is drunk; she may not leave the city during the night, unless she is planning to commit adultery; she may not wear gold jewelry or a garment with a purple border, unless she is a courtesan; and a husband may not wear a gold-studded ring or a cloak of Milesian fashion unless he is bent upon prostitution or adultery."

It also banned the drinking of undiluted wine except for medical purposes.

Ancient Rome
The Sumptuariae Leges of ancient Rome were various laws passed to prevent inordinate expense (Latin sūmptus) in banquets and dress, such as the use of expensive Tyrian purple dye. Roman senators and senior magistrates were entitled to wear a Tyrian purple stripe on their toga and tunic. In the early years of the Roman Empire, men were forbidden to wear silk, which was deemed an effeminate and morally suspect material. During the height of the Empire, expenditure on silk imported from China was so high, Imperial advisers warned that Roman silver reserves were becoming exhausted.

The Roman censors had a duty to put a check upon morals and extravagance in personal and political expenditure. The censors published details of offences in the nota censoria, which listed the names of everyone found guilty of a luxurious mode of living; a great many instances of this kind are recorded. Towards the end of the Roman Republic, laws were passed against political corruption of Roman magistrates, forbidding their attendance at banquets given by candidates or their agents. During the period of transition from Republic to Empire, such antisumptuary laws, which may have still existed were virtually ignored by most. In the period of profligate luxury goods that characterized the height of the Roman Empire, the laws regarding the wearing of Tyrian purple were rigorously enforced. Infringement of this prohibition was treasonous, so punishable by death.

Roman sumptuary laws applied to both the living and the dead. Rome's most ancient laws, the laws of the Twelve Tables, forbade extravagant expenses at funerals. This included the pouring of wine over the ashes at cremations (which seems nevertheless to have been an invariable practise), the use of smoothed timbers in funeral pyres, and "excessive" mourning.

China
Sumptuary laws existed in China in one form or another from the Qin dynasty onward (221 BC). The Confucian virtue of restraint was embodied in the scholarly system central to China's bureaucracy and became encoded in its laws.

Some laws concerned the size and decoration of graves and mausoleums. The Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming dynasty, issued such regulations in the first year of his rule (1368) and tightened them in 1396, allowing only the highest nobility and officials of the top three ranks a memorial stele installed on top of a stone tortoise; the steles of lower-level mandarins were perched on rectangular pedestals, while commoners had to be satisfied with a simple gravestone. The location of graves and the number of attendant statues depended on rank.

After c. 1550, sumptuary law in China was reformed. It had long been ineffective. The consumption of luxuries had risen over the previous several centuries, and at the time of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, Chinese consumption of luxuries such as tea, sugar, fine silk, tobacco, and eating utensils was on a par with the core regions of Europe.

Japan
According to Britannica Online, "In feudal Japan, sumptuary laws were passed with a frequency and minuteness of scope that had no parallel in the history of the Western world." During the Edo period (1603–1868), people of every class were subject to strict sumptuary laws, including regulation of the types of clothing that could be worn. In the second half of that period (the 18th and 19th centuries), the merchant class had grown far wealthier than the aristocratic samurai, and these laws sought to maintain the superiority of the samurai class despite the merchants being able to afford far more luxurious clothing and other items. The shogunate eventually gave in and allowed certain concessions, including allowing merchants of a certain prestige to wear a single sword at their belt; samurai were required to wear a matched pair when on official duty.

Islamic world
Islamic sumptuary laws are based upon teachings found in the Quran and Hadith. Males are exhorted not to wear silk clothes, nor have jewelry made of gold. Likewise, wearing clothes or robes that drag on the ground, seen as a sign of vanity and excessive pride, is also forbidden. These rules do not apply to women, who are allowed all this, but also need to cover their bodies and hair.

Prohibition of depictions of human and animal figures in general are similar to those of the Quranic prohibition on graven images. Hadiths do allow the depiction of animals on clothing items.

Medieval and Renaissance Europe
Sumptuary laws issued by secular authorities, aimed at keeping the main population dressed according to their "station", do not begin until the later 13th century. These laws were addressed to the entire social body, but the brunt of regulations was directed at women and the middle classes. Their curbing of display was ordinarily couched in religious and moralizing vocabulary, yet was affected by social and economic considerations aimed at preventing ruinous expense among the wealthy classes and the drain of capital reserves to foreign suppliers.

Courtesans
Special forms of dress for prostitutes and courtesans were introduced during the 13th century – in Marseille, a striped cloak, in England a striped hood, and so on. Over time, these tended to be reduced to distinctive bands of fabric attached to the arm or shoulder, or tassels on the arm. Later restrictions specified various forms of finery that were forbidden, although there was also sometimes a recognition that finery represented working equipment (and capital) for a prostitute, and they could be exempted from laws applying to other non-noble women. By the 15th century, no compulsory clothing seems to have been imposed on prostitutes in Florence, Venice, or Paris.

England
As early as the 12th century, certain articles of clothing were prohibited to crusaders and pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land under the Saladin Tithe of 1188, but scant evidence exists in the historical record of legal regulations on dress in Britain until the reign of Edward III, during which prohibitions were enacted on the import of textiles from lands outside Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales and the exportation of domestically produced wool was likewise banned. The statute contained further restrictions on clothing based on social class; the earliest example of class-based restriction was that of fur, prohibited for anyone below the rank of lady or knight. The restriction on fur was expanded in subsequent decades in London to restrict prostitutes from wearing any furs, including budge (low-quality wool) or lambswool.

In England, which in this respect was typical of Europe, from the reign of Edward III in the Middle Ages until well into the 17th century, sumptuary laws dictated what colour and type of clothing, furs, fabrics, and trims were allowed to persons of various ranks or incomes. In the case of clothing, this was intended, amongst other reasons, to reduce spending on foreign textiles and to ensure that people did not dress "above their station":

"The excess of apparel and the superfluity of unnecessary foreign wares thereto belonging now of late years is grown by sufferance to such an extremity that the manifest decay of the whole realm generally is like to follow (by bringing into the realm such superfluities of silks, cloths of gold, silver, and other most vain devices of so great cost for the quantity thereof as of necessity the moneys and treasure of the realm is and must be yearly conveyed out of the same to answer the said excess) but also particularly the wasting and undoing of a great number of young gentlemen, otherwise serviceable, and others seeking by show of apparel to be esteemed as gentlemen, who, allured by the vain show of those things, do not only consume themselves, their goods, and lands which their parents left unto them, but also run into such debts and shifts as they cannot live out of danger of laws without attempting unlawful acts, whereby they are not any ways serviceable to their country as otherwise they might be"

The first major sumptuary act was passed in April 1463 during the reign of Edward IV. Earlier statutes had sought to control the expense of household liveries, but the April 1463 statute marked the first attempt at a comprehensive sumptuary legislation. Scholars have interpreted the act as part of a set of protectionist economic measures that included regulations of the textile industry and trade in cloths. This statute is the first known English legislation restricting the use of "royal purple" – a term which, during the Middle Ages, referred not only to the Tyrian purple of Antiquity, but also to crimson, dark reds and royal blue. The language of the act uses technical terminology to restrict certain features of garments that are decorative in function, intended to enhance the silhouette.

A second "Act of Apparel" followed in January 1483 restricting cloth-of-gold, sable, ermine, velvet on velvet and satin brocade to knights and lords. Damask and satin were allowed for yeoman of the Crown and esquires and other members of the gentry, only if they had a yearly income of £40. Bustian, fustian, scarlet-dyed cloths and any leathers or animal hides other than lambskins were also restricted.

An act of Parliament, the Caps Act 1571 (13 Eliz. 1. c. 19) to stimulate domestic wool consumption and general trade decreed that on Sundays and holidays, all males over six years of age, except for the nobility and persons of degree, were to wear woolen caps on pain of a fine of three farthings ($3/4$ penny) per day. This law instituted the flat cap as part of English wear. The 1571 act was repealed in 1597 by the Continuance, etc. of Laws Act 1597 (39 Eliz. 1. c. 18).

An extremely long list of items, specifying colour, materials, and sometimes place of manufacture (imported goods being much more tightly restricted) followed for each sex, with equally specific exceptions by rank of nobility or position held. For the most part, these laws seem to have had little effect, though the Parliament of England made repeated amendments to the laws, and several monarchs, most notably the Tudors, continually called for stricter enforcement, especially at Court "to the intent there may be a difference of estates known by their apparel after the commendable custom in times past."

The laws were justified by the reasoning that the price of certain goods increased to levels where "the treasure of the land is destroyed, to the great damage of the lords and the commonality" when "various people or various conditions wear various apparel not appropriate to their estate".

Adam Smith was against the necessity or convenience of sumptuary laws, he wrote: "of It is the highest impertinence and presumption... in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

Italy
During the Medieval and Renaissance eras in Italy, various towns passed sumptuary laws (leggi suntuarie) often in response to particular events or movements. For example, Bernardino of Siena, in his public sermons in Siena, thundered against the vanity of luxurious dress; this, however, was counterbalanced by the economic benefit Siena derived as a manufacturer of items, including clothes, of luxury. One source describes these types of laws as constantly published, and generally ignored. These laws, mostly aimed at female apparel, sometimes became a source of revenue for the state: the Florentine laws of 1415 restricted the luxury that could be worn by women, but exempted those willing to pay 50 florins a year. The laws were often quite specific. Low necklines were prohibited in Genoa, Milan, and Rome in the early 16th century, and laws restricting zibellini (sable furs carried as fashion accessories) with heads and feet of precious metals and jewels were issued in Bologna in 1545 and Milan in 1565.

France
Montaigne's brief essay "On sumptuary laws" criticized 16th-century French laws, beginning: "The way by which our laws attempt to regulate idle and vain expenses in meat and clothes, seems to be quite contrary to the end designed… For to enact that none but princes shall eat turbot, shall wear velvet or gold lace, and interdict these things to the people, what is it but to bring them into a greater esteem, and to set every one more agog to eat and wear them?" He also cites Plato and Zaleucus.

Scotland
One of the earliest known Scottish sumptuary regulations was passed in 1429 during the reign of James I of Scotland. The text, written in Old Scots, preserves some medieval legal terminology related to textiles, limiting silk, some types of furs (pine martens, beech martens) and other items to men of certain social ranks like knight, lord, burgess, and their families. As with the laws of Henry V of England in 1420, silver plating was reserved for the spurs of knights and the apparel of barons or higher ranking persons. Metalsmiths caught violating these laws would be punished by death and all their lands and goods forfeit. Embroidery and pearls were also restricted. Yeomen and commoners could not wear colored clothes longer than the knee. The poke sleeve that narrowed at the wrist were allowed for sentinel yeomen who lived in their lord's house and rode with the gentlemen. Commoners' wives could not wear long-tail hoods or side-necked hoods, poked sleeves, or caps made from rich textiles like Lawn cloth or Rheims (fine linen).

Early modern era
Sumptuary laws were repealed in the early 17th century, but new protectionist laws were passed prohibiting the purchase of foreign silks and laces. Prohibitions were tied to rank and income and continued to be widely ignored.

France
In 1629 and 1633, Louis XIII of France issued edicts regulating "Superfluity of Dress" that prohibited anyone but princes and the nobility from wearing gold embroidery or caps, shirts, collars, and cuffs embroidered with metallic threads or lace, and puffs, slashes, and bunches of ribbon were severely restricted. As with other such laws, these were widely disregarded and enforced in a lax manner. A series of popular engravings by Abraham Bosse depicts the supposed effects of this law.

Colonial America
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a 1634 prohibition deemed that only people with a personal fortune of at least two hundred pounds could wear lace, silver or gold thread or buttons, cutwork, embroidery, hatbands, belts, ruffles, capes, and other articles. After a few decades, the law was being widely defied. By 1651, flouting of the rules caused leadership to issue a new strongly worded regulation to the populace again.

Modern era
While rarely do restrictions exist on the type or quality of clothing, beyond maintenance of public decency, wearing certain types of clothing is restricted to specific occupations, specifically the uniforms of organisations like the police and military.

In some jurisdictions, clothing or other visible signs of religious or political opinion (e.g. Nazi imagery in Germany) are forbidden in certain public places.

Many American states in the 20th century prohibited the wearing of Ku Klux Klan hoods, masks, masquerade, or drag; gay men in New York City seized on the exemption for masquerade balls in the 1920s to 1930s to go in drag.

Proscription or requirement of native dress
Sumptuary laws have also been used to control populations by prohibiting the wearing of native dress and hairstyles, along with the proscription of other cultural customs. John Perrot, the Lord Deputy of Ireland under Elizabeth I, banned the wearing of traditional woollen mantles, "open smocks" with "great sleeves", and native headdresses, requiring the people to dress in "civil garments" in the English style.

In a similar manner, the Dress Act 1746, which formed part of the Act of Proscription issued under George II following the Jacobite rising of 1745, made the wearing of Highland dress, including tartan and kilts, illegal in Scotland (an exemption was made for soldiers and veterans). The Act was eventually repealed in 1782, and during the Regency and Victorian eras, Highland dress gained widespread popularity, in part thanks to the visit of George IV to Scotland in 1822, which was organised by Scottish writer Walter Scott.

In Bhutan, the wearing of traditional dress (which also has an ethnic connotation) in certain places, such as when visiting government offices, was made compulsory in 1989 under the driglam namzha laws. Part of the traditional dress includes the kabney, a long scarf whose coloring is regulated. Only the King of Bhutan and Chief Abbot may don the saffron scarf, with various other colors reserved for government and religious officers, and white available for common people.

Pejorative uses of term
The term sumptuary law has been used as a pejorative term to describe any governmental control of consumption based on moral, religious, health, or public safety, or other concerns. American Judge Thomas M. Cooley generally described their modern form as laws that "substitute the legislative judgment for that of the proprietor, regarding the manner in which he should use and employ his property." Policies to which the term has been critically applied include alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, smoking bans,   and restrictions on dog fighting.

Alcohol prohibition
As early as 1860, Anthony Trollope, writing about his experiences in Maine under the state's prohibition law, stated, "This law (prohibition), like all sumptuary laws, must fail." In 1918, William Howard Taft decried prohibition in the United States as a bad sumptuary law, stating that one of his reasons for opposing prohibition was his belief that "sumptuary laws are matters for parochial adjustment." Taft later repeated this concern. The Indiana Supreme Court also discussed alcohol prohibition as a sumptuary law in its 1855 decision Herman v. State. During state conventions on the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933, numerous delegates throughout the United States decried prohibition as having been an improper sumptuary law that never should have been included in the Constitution of the United States.

In 1971, a United States federal study stated that federal laws on alcohol include "sumptuary laws which are directed at the purchaser", including, "Sales are not permitted to minors or intoxicated persons. Credit is often prohibited on liquor sales, as well. Criminal penalties may be imposed for driving under the influence of alcohol, as well as for drunken behavior."

Drug prohibition
When the U.S. state of Washington considered cannabis decriminalization in two initiatives, 229 and 248, the initiatives' language stated, "Cannabis prohibition is a sumptuary law of a nature repugnant to our Constitution's framers."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sumptuary law


text:
Talk:Telstra

Telstra cleansing?
I saw some edits which can only be interpreted as Telstra or its employees trying to cleanse the article of bad news. Please dont do this. Thanks. RogerM1975 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

3 R's
Current Telstra staff should adhear to the 3 R's poilcy before making an edit to the artical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this belong here? Please police your employees elsewhere 121.209.25.45 (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Telecom Australia and Telstra
I have proposed that Telecom Australia be merged with Telstra. They are, after all, the same company and are just different trading names relevant to the times. 121.45.225.44 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Telstra in contrast is a "Services" company which supplies telecommunication services to clients. In one instance the company was a Government Commission and public entity, whereas Telstra is a Corporation with Shareholders. Perhaps it may be argued that Telecom Australia Should retain a page because it was a Government owned and run making it an arm of Government, thus significantly and intriniscally different in both function and purpose. AquaLeopard (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are not the same company. Telecom Australia was not a company at all. Telecom Australia was a trading name used by a statutory authority (Australian Telecommunications Commission) before it became a statutory corporation (Australian Telecommunications Corporation). 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. They may not be the same company but Telecom Australia is an important part of Telstra's history. It is already mentioned in the History section of this article. In fact in its current state the Telecom Australia page could be safely deleted without any loss of important information. All it has is a statement that it existed then a rather arbitrary section on phonecard art.--Amaher (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Telecom Australia was in fact an ongoing Royal Commission when it started. Also Specifically Telecom Australia was an "Engineering" company primarily, which supplied telecommunications services to clients.

CEO Table
Well done to the person that has added the CEO Table to the artical - its a good idea, but it needs to be used - if any one wants to move it within the artical so it sits in a better loaction, or expand on it in any way that would help - at the moment its only a list of names.
 * Dear anonymous: you could also just move it:) --Rmarsden (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Management section
Hi there. I removed content from the management section because I feel that it is outdated, and that there may be an undue weight issue. As a disclosure, I am indeed an employee of Telstra, however I came across this text reading this article, and removed it as an enwiki editor, not acting in any capacity as a Telstra employee.

The text that I initially removed was the following:

In April 2006, the appointment of Fiona Balfour as Chief Information Officer saw Vish Padmanabhan demoted to his previous role of deputy CIO. On 6 February 2007, Balfour left the company, 10 months after she had joined the company following 14 years with Qantas. On the ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) documentary program Four Corners, Telstra's COO Greg Winn was revealed to have stated "We run an absolute dictatorship and that’s what’s going to drive this transformation and deliver results... If you can’t get the people to go there and you try once and you try twice... then you just shoot ‘em and get them out of the way..."

Most of this information is rather outdated - at least five or six years ago, and I am not sure if it adds a lot to the article. The second section especially, which was a comment from an management meeting that was reported on a current affairs program five years ago. I invite others to review this content and if they agree, to consider changing or removing it. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Im with you. Seems like some kind of revenge and adds nothing. I've removed 60.225.145.42 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism
Where's the controversy / criticism section? These are standard practice for any established company. The really big ones like Google even have their own articles on the subject. P.S. If this gets a diplomatic answer, I'm going to investigate further as I smell a corporate rat who's been tampering with this article.--Coin945 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh, let's not jump to conclusions now; I've been watching this page for about 2 years and a controversy section has never been proposed nor inserted into the article. I assume that one reason for this is that most of the controversies that Telstra has been involved in are quite technical and generally don't directly affect consumer; such as NBN opposition, share market drop, monopolistic agenda, Trujillo, etc. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not about the inclusion of that sort of content... it's more about the exclusion of that content. And this is a lot more subtle. You'll find that small changes are made to rephrase things in a more positive light. I suspected some of this bias was going on when inspecting the revision history. Perhaps my comment was a bit strong, but at least it got some attention, which is the most important thing when the problem may be so slight it is virtually unidentifiable without close investigation.--Coin945 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont get it. If you want this section, add it. No point in discussing adding it if noone wants to put the work into it? 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * if a problem is so slight that it is unidentifiable, is it a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.25.45 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Australia’s largest telco stored data for FBI
Telstra, Australia’s largest phone company, stored emails and phone calls to be handed over to US intelligence upon request, according to an agreement it signed in 2001 with the FBI and US Department of Justice.

The copy of the 12-year-old agreement, which was posted online on Friday by news website Crikey, is in confirmation of this week’s earlier leak by Edward Snowden, revealing that large amounts of communication data sent around the world via undersea cables could be intercepted by the US, based on the agreements federal agents signed with foreign corporations.

The Australian Greens Party has called on Telstra to “immediately disclose details” of the deal, which allowed “the FBI and US Department of Justice to monitor calls and data traffic via the company's undersea cables,” according to the party’s website.

“This is an extraordinary breach of trust, invasion of privacy, and erosion of Australia’s sovereignty,” Greens Party Senator Scott Ludlam said.

http://rt.com/news/telstra-australia-us-surveillance-004/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And? what's the relevance for the TALK page? you can add this info into the article if you like 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes
An IP and another user have been repeatedly making detrimental edits to the lead. The users suggested that Telstra was also known as www.telstra.com, which is frankly preposterous, firstly because it's www.telstra.com.au, secondly because in no official document is Telstra referred to as by its website. User also removed a few statements without reasoning and reworded a paragraph in a manner that made it more convoluted and frivolous - it's totally unnecessary to state that a company is subjected to regulations as all companies are. As I said before, the edit was not an improvement to the lead but rather was a detriment. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The oldcurrent lead in paragraph claims that Telstra is undergoing changes due to the "mass adoption of the internet". THis sounds very dated because this has happened a long time ago. And yes, regulation is a dominant force in how Telstra is being shaped, as a large incumbent. It's far more prominent than "any company". Just read the news: NBN, Adam acquisition, ... etc. The whole point of this place is that content can be changed by "anyone". Just because something is here first doesnt make it right or better Rmarsden (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was perhaps one aspect of the reverted edit I failed to restore but frankly his other claim that social media was the cause of structural changes overshadowed any improvements he may have made to the tone. The mass adoption of the internet is still ongoing if you haven't noticed; internet usage rates in Australia continues to increase, the creation of the NBN also bears testimony to that fact. That's beside the point though as my main concern is your and IP's suggestion that social media has affected Telstra; in what way could this be true? Yeah, it affects marketing but such changes affect every company currently in existence, why again must something so frivolous be mentioned? Unless you can think of another impact social media has and cite a source that verifies it, don't include it in the lead. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SOcial media = fewer people call. Smartphones = more people use VOIP proviers. Both have massive impact on Telstra. See Telstra's comments on decline of fixed phone line usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.174 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about citing this comment you speak of instead of referring to it here? None of the existing citation mention anything about social media and its impact on fixed lines the last time I checked. If any of them do, please clearly cite them here. Texting has contributed to fewer calls, and so has email, however since I don't have a source that can verify either of these claims, it cannot be included in the article regardless of whether it's true per WP:NOTTRUTH. Having said that, the article as you can see is not of a high quality and while it is correct to include sources in the body, if one does not exist there, it can be temporarily in the lead until one rectifies the minor technical issue. This is the case here; removing sources and contributing to the bareness of the content rather than moving them to the body is detrimental to the quality of article. Also, it's undeniable that internet adoption is continuing to impact the structural of Telstra. The NBN scheme is bears clear testimony to that as stated before; there's a clear need for the NBN as current infrastructure isn't able to handle the continual growth and demand for high bandwidth internet. Hence, rather than outright removing clearly accurate and sourced claims, why not move the entire statement to the body if social media is an impact and a source can be found and cited. I have added a tag to the top of the article remind users to continue to discuss the matter in the talk page before carrying out changes. Please observe WP:BRD. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added content incl. several ref's in the article. Also, AUstralia's broadband market is growing less than half the rate of oecd, so this trend is over. I also added a ref in the body of the article. PLease read those first. 101.164.17.34 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you've addressed a part of my concern. I would still like to retain information on the structural impacts that internet adoption has had but the recently added content is beneficial therefore I'm not going to revert it, however direct links to Telstra would be beneficial if not imperative per WP:SYN. I'm not going to fuss too much over that but according to the previously cited guideline, the content can still be disputed due to the lack of direct links to Telstra. Actually, in the middle of writing this response, I realised that User:Bidgee has reverted your edit. I'm not going to revert it back because he is technically right. To resolve this issue, you'd need sources that clearly state that Telstra has been impacted by social media and smartphones. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the Anon to find sources that are about Telstra (and the sources must state "Telstra"), rather than using sources to support your view point. As stated above, it violates WP:SYN. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a source directly from T. Note: the phrase you keep reverting to has no reference of any kind. It's just made up. Pls apply same criteria to all content, not just changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.224 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the first few comments in the discussion. There's no need to mention something as frivolous as social media having an impact on marketing as this trend has affected all businesses and is basically a given. The source also fails to support your earlier claim that "SOcial media = fewer people call" and mentions nothing about smartphones. You've also restored a section that is not in any way linked to Telstra and its business structure, and from what I can see would be better suited in general articles such as social media, the internet and fixed line. The previous source is not "made up", your inability to find it does not mean it's nonexistent; please try searching the keywords in the citation on Google. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we have an editor (User:Rmarsden) socking to push though content that is false and misleading. Telstra trades as "Telstra", not www.telstra.com (nor www.telstra.com.au) and "Australia's largest" is a clear POV and not supported within the article or sourced from independent sources. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Telstra source
Discussion moved from User talk:Alex Sims

Hi. the source you restored has a serious problem: the author of the HBR article also consulted to Telstra on the very marketing model he describes. He says so in the source itself. So there is an inherent bias in the claims of the effectiveness of the strategy and therefore I dont rate the claim that Telstra was able to "retain several point of market share" by using this strategy as "encyclopedic". Please reconsider. Thanks 101.164.50.161 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't share your concerns. The article is from a peer reviewed journal and this will counter any bias. pleas have areas of WP:RS . P.S. You might want to consider getting a Wikipedia username. It makes communication between editors much easier, also gives you a Watchlist. Alex Sims (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the HBR is peer reviewed 101.171.170.147 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Harvard Business Review articles are internally reviewed and references checked. The bar for entry is quite high, and I doubt anyone would not consider the printed magazine reliable. You could argue it sits somewhere between a scholarly publication and a news article in reputation, but I would put it along with scholarly publications. If you really wanted to you could use a review article (if one exists) about the same topic instead of this reference, but I would leave the reference in. Any bias you are concerned about would have been dealt with by the editors of the HBR. Alex Sims (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Like any magazine, articles are reviewed by editor. But I seriously doubt that the content of articles is fact checked independently. Anyways, I have amended the article to reflect the reference, ie that the person who designed the Telstra program claims is works. A fair compromise Id say. 101.164.50.161 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a barrow to push by using straw man arguments about HBR. The same author has used the same arguments in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Please discuss further on the article talk page not here. Alex Sims (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved the discussion here Alex Sims (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. You could also help by shaping the article to better reflect reality. You can't seriously claim that there isn't a circular reference here. This article is the only reference for the claim and it was written by someone advising Telstra as a consultant on this strategy. Surprise surprise, the consultant says his advice saved the day. At least, let's be clear about what the "reference" is. Apart from that, this is hardly encyclopedic. It's a minor minor element of the market position of Telstra. 101.164.50.161 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

MErge with Bigpond
Executed merge 14 May 2014 New but motivated (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Update Info Box
The Information box (top right of article) has out-of-date information. I suggest the following update, noting that the term "Total Income" has replaced the term "Revenue" to reflect what is used in the Annual Report. An alternative is to use the "Sales Revenue" figure but that is a different measure to what is currently used in the article.

Total Income = $26.3B (2014)

Profit = $4.3B (2014)

Assets = $39.36B (2014)

Equity = $13.96B (2014)

Employees: 31,931

Products: Fixed and Mobile telephony, Data and IP products and services, Network and Application Services

--Baisili (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sponsorships and awards
I would appreciate assistance with updating information in this section. With potential CoI, I do not want to modify this information directly but I believe the suggested updates provided below are desirable: Section: Sponsorships and awards

Suggested text (to replace all the text currently in that section):

"Telstra's sponsorship portfolio includes AFL, NRL, Netball Australia, Surf Life Saving Australia, The Australian Ballet, NATSIAA (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award), and the music development program Telstra Road to Discovery. (https://www.beinvolved.com.au) Telstra also sponsors the Australian Business Awards (http://www.telstrabusinessawards.com/) recognising small to medium sized businesses since 1992, and the Australian Business Women's Award, acknowledging the contribution of women in Australian businesses since 1995. (http://www.telstrabusinesswomensawards.com/) In addition to these sponsorships Telstra supports community groups through its Telstra Foundation. (http://telstrafoundation.com/)"

Rationale for changes: Telstra is no longer a sponsor of V8 supercars (http://www.v8supercars.com.au/about/official-sponsors). Telstra does not have naming rights related to Telstra Clear, which Vodafone acquired in October 2012 (http://www.vodafone.co.nz/telstraclear/).

The Nintendo JV has long since expired. If of historical value, I suggest the following re-write of that topic to improve understanding. (Note that I cannot find a reference for the end of the JV so have not mentioned it):

"In April 2007, Telstra in conjunction with Nintendo Australia launched a service allowing Nintendo DS®* users to access Telstra Wireless Hotspots at more than 1,000 destinations across Australia. Destinations include McDonald’s Restaurants, Starbucks Cafés, airports, hotels and city hot-zones throughout Melbourne and Sydney.(http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/181458/nintendo_telstra_double_up_ds_hotspots/ )" Baisili (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sensis
A COI editor, CS at Sensis, wants to create an article solely about Sensis, which would have an impact on this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 one external links on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120628173500/http://itechreport.com.au:80/2011/07/08/telstra-turns-to-crowd-sourced-support-launches-crowdsupport/ to http://itechreport.com.au/2011/07/08/telstra-turns-to-crowd-sourced-support-launches-crowdsupport/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121105174028/http://itechreport.com.au:80/2011/11/07/telstra-preps-my-telstra-iphone-app/ to http://itechreport.com.au/2011/11/07/telstra-preps-my-telstra-iphone-app/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131206211355/http://www.v8supercars.com.au/aboutv8s/officialsponsors/tabid/863/default.aspx to http://www.v8supercars.com.au/aboutv8s/officialsponsors/tabid/863/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140808153732/http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_au.shtml to http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_au.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610211941/http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls542_fyr2007.pdf to http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/docs/tls542_fyr2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509170639/http://www.about.sensis.com.au/news/media_releases/mediaRelease.php?id=20020819 to http://www.about.sensis.com.au/news/media_releases/mediaRelease.php?id=20020819
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120629013437/http://blog.mog.com:80/post.php?num=638184929 to http://blog.mog.com/post.php?num=638184929
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510022446/http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/news/telstras-endeavour-submarine-cable-live to http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/news/telstras-endeavour-submarine-cable-live
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120515085730/http://www.telstrainternational.com/news/nid-85/telstra-expands-global-telepresence-reach-with-tata-communications/ to http://www.telstrainternational.com/news/nid-85/telstra-expands-global-telepresence-reach-with-tata-communications/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120515085806/http://www.telstrainternational.com/news/nid-88/telstra-expands-in-india-with-new-telecoms-licences/ to http://www.telstrainternational.com/news/nid-88/telstra-expands-in-india-with-new-telecoms-licences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121203174154/http://www.v8supercars.com.au:80/aboutv8s/officialsponsors/tabid/863/default.aspx to http://www.v8supercars.com.au/aboutv8s/officialsponsors/tabid/863/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Make Clear which government sold Telstra
This page could be improved by making clear which political party made the decision to sell Telstra, and how much contribution the share sales made to Annual Budgets. 220.240.235.240 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) = Why dont you do it? 120.18.88.50 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account?
Account WikiLydia seems to be SPA, editing essentially only the Telstra article, seemingly aimed at protecting Telstra 120.18.88.50 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telstra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nt.gov.au%2Fnreta%2Fmuseums%2Fexhibitions%2Fnatsiaa%2F&date=2010-10-30 to http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/exhibitions/natsiaa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Australia is why" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Australia is why. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section
Of the three events listed in the article's controversies section, two seem like they shouldn't be there: The sources seem to just be describing things that happened, rather than saying that the thing was bad. That would seem to be required for them to be controversies. James (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) A number of companies, including Telstra, blocked sites sharing videos of a terrorist murdering people.
 * 2) Telstra was one of many companies that donated money to the Yes campaign of the upcoming constitutional referendum.

title: Talk:Telstra


text:
Heinsberg (district)

Heinsberg is a Kreis (district) in the west of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany with the town of Heinsberg as its capital. Neighbouring districts are Viersen, Neuss, Düren and Aachen, the city of Mönchengladbach and the Dutch province Limburg.

Geography
Heinsberg is the most westerly district of Germany, reaching 5°52'E in Selfkant municipality.

Geographically it covers the lowlands of the Lower Rhine Bay.

Rivers

 * Rur is the main river, crossing the district from southeast to northwest.
 * Wurm flows into river Rur, in Heinsberg.
 * Schwalm originates near Erkelenz.
 * Niers rises near Kuckum.

Development of the district
The area fell to Prussia in 1815, which in 1816 created the three districts Heinsberg, Erkelenz and Geilenkirchen. In 1932 the districts Heinsberg and Geilenkirchen were merged, and in 1972 Erkelenz district was merged as well. In 1975 the district reached its present size when the municipality Niederkrüchten was moved to the district Viersen.

Prominent role in the Covid-19 pandemic
The district became a center of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The Robert Koch Institute listed Heinsberg as an especially affected area ("besonders betroffenes Gebiet"). Since the first cases were discovered in this area, the district was around two weeks "ahead" of the rest of Germany. A research group of the University of Bonn started to use the affected area as a testing site to study the novel coronavirus and to search for ways to handle the situation in the best possible way.

Coat of arms
The coat of arms show two lions in the top part, in the left the silver lion of the city and the dukes of Heinsberg, in the right the black lion on yellow ground of the duchy of Jülich. The bottom part derives from the coat of arms of the former district Erkelenz, the fleur-de-lis from the city of Erkelenz represent the Maria-abbey in Aachen, and the blue flax flower in the middle remembers the old tradition of flax and linen trading in Erkelenz.

title: Heinsberg (district)


text:
Talk:Sumptuary law

Initial Paragraph
The start of this article makes it sound like, most of the time, these laws are used to prevent poor people from looking rich. Certainly that has been the case. But all the early instances, it was designed as a cap on excess. I wish it was written to express that better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) It could also be taken to mean the repression of pleasurable activities which are popular among the lower classes, because of the difficulties of ensuring their continued productivity. The imposition of taxation is partly a means of enforcing this type of restriction. Another is to create repressive, artificial or deceptive moral values which are selectively applied.But, as always,Q.C.I.C..bruce (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) A further effort to repress popular activities was caused by the general availability of photography in the 1860's. It was then considered to be undesirable that the lower classes should have access to salacious and erotic images which would lower their productivity. The hypocritical reaction was such that a new, greek-based, word was created (pornography) and suitable restrictive legislation was rammed through the British parliament. But, as said above: Quis custodet ipso custodes!Miletus (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bravo?
In the first text, it is stated, "that, bravos excepted, no man was to wear a gold compass ," Does anyone know what a "bravo" is? The only thing I can find that might fit the context is a hired killer, but I don't think that makes sense. Should there be a link to a definition or explanation? GBMorris 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Given that the citation is Seventh Century BC Locrian code, it could only refer to a macaroni (maccaroni) based on a later translation. Didn't find the word in the original Locrian and think it should be removed for now. Bravo in this context makes no sense: If the purpose of the law was to eliminate excess, why permit excess only among the excessive? Dstlascaux (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 * A bravo is I think a very old-fashioned term for a stylish young (originally Italian) male - most of the younger male roles in Romeo and Juliet would qualify. What on earth it might have meant in or for Ancient Greece I have no idea. Johnbod 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Added text from 1875 document A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. published by John Murray, London, in 1875, which can be found at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Sumtuariae_Leges.html

 * This excerpt really belongs to Wikisource, not here. We are also missing an article about the encyclopedia you mention, but I created an article William Smith (lexicographer) about its author (based on 1911 Britannica). jni 09:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of the High Medieval and Renaissance sumptuary laws intended to separate social classes were notorious for being nearly complete dead letters practically from the moment they were decreed. Churchh 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got a source for the claim that vestiges of sumptuary laws still exist? DrHydeous 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That question is what brought me here.--Smallwhitelight 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * School uniforms? To the extent they are supported because they motivated by preventing pupils from wasting their money on expensive and inappropriate clothing. Of course school uniforms have other purposes.DavidBofinger 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Leges
The examples of ancient sumptuary laws really adds very little to the article and needs editing. I've placed it here until someone will take the time to do so.

Peter Isotalo 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sumptuariae leges
The text below is taken from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875 by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.

SUMTUA´RIAE LEGES, the name of various laws passed to prevent inordinate expense (sumtus) in banquets, dress, &c. (Gellius, ii.24, xx.1). In the states of antiquity it was considered the duty of government to put a check upon extravagance in the private expenses of persons, and among the Romans in particular we find traces of this in the laws attributed to the kings and in the Twelve Tables. The censors, to whom was entrusted the disciplina or cura morum, punished by the nota censoria all persons guilty of what was then regarded as a luxurious mode of living: a great many instances of this kind are recorded [CENSOR, p264, a.] But as the love of luxury greatly increased with the foreign conquests of the republic and the growing wealth of the nations, various Leges Sumtuariae were passed at different times with the object of restraining it. These however, as may be supposed, rarely accomplished their object, and in the latter times of the republic they were virtually repealed. The following is a list of the most important of them arranged in chronological order.

OPPIA, proposed by the tribune C. Oppius in the consulship of Q. Fabius and Ti. Sempronius in the middle of the second Punic war B.C. 213, enacted that no woman should have above half an ounce of gold, nor wear a dress of different colours, nor ride in a carriage in the city or in any town, or within a mile of it, unless on account of public sacrifices. This law was repealed twenty years afterwards (Liv. xxiv.1, 8; Val. Max. ix.1 §3), whence we frequently find the Lex Orchia mentioned as the first Lex Sumtuaria. Tacitus (Tac. Ann. iii.33, 34) speaks of Oppiae Leges.

ORCHIA, proposed by the tribune C. Orchius in the third year after the censorship of Cato B.C. 181, limited the number of guests to be present at entertainments. When attempts were afterwards made to repeal the law, Cato offered the strongest opposition, and delivered a speech in defence of the law, which is referred to by the grammarians (Macrob. Sat. iii.17.3; Festus, s.vv. Obsonitavere, Percunctatum; Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sest. p310, ed. Johann Caspar Orelli; Meyer, Orat. Roman. Fragm. p91, &c., 2d ed.).

FANNIA, proposed by the consul C. Fannius B.C. 161, limited the sums which were to be spent on entertainments, and enacted that not more than 100 asses should be spent on certain festivals named in the lex, whence it is called Centussis by Lucilius, that on ten other days in each month not more than 30 asses, and that on all other days not more than 10 asses should be expended: also that no other fowl but one hen should be served up, and that not fattened for the purpose (Gell. ii.24; Macrob. Sat. iii.17.5; Plin. H.N. x.50 s.71).

DIDIA, passed B.C. 143, extended the Lex Fannia to the whole of Italy, and enacted that not only those who gave entertainments which exceeded in expense what the law had prescribed, but also all who were present at such entertainments, should be liable to the penalties of the law. We are not however told in what these consisted (Macrob. Sat. iii.17.6).

LICINIA agreed in its chief provisions with the Lex Fannia, and was brought forward, we are told, that there might be the authority of a new law upon the subject, inasmuch as the Lex Fannia was beginning to be neglected. It allowed 200 asses to be spent on entertainments upon marriage days and on other days the same as the Lex Fannia: also, that on ordinary days there should not be served up more than three pounds of fresh and one pound of salt meat (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.). Gellius (l.c.) states, that this law was brought forward by P. Licinius Crassus, but we do not know at what time, probably however in his praetorship B.C. 103. Gellius relates elsewhere (xv.8) that a Latin orator of the name of Favorinus spoke in support of this law (see Dict. of Biog. art. Favorinus).

CORNELIA, a law of the dictator Sulla B.C. 81, was enacted on account of the neglect of the Fannian and Licinian Laws. Like these it regulated the expenses of entertainments (Gell. ii.24; Macrob. l.c.). Extravagance in funerals, which had been forbidden even in the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Leg. ii.23-25), was also restrained by a law of Sulla (Plut. Sull. 35). It was probably the same law which determined how much might be spent upon monuments (Cic. ad Att. xii.35, 36).

AEMILIA, proposed by the consul Aemilius Lepidus B.C. 78, did not limit the expenses of entertainments, but the kind and quantity of food that was to be used (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.). Pliny (H.N. viii.57 s.82) and Aurelius Victor (de Vir. Ill. 72) ascribe the law to the consulship of M. Aemilius Scaurus B.C. 115. It is not impossible that there may have been two Aemilian Leges on the subject.

ANTIA, of uncertain date, proposed by Antius Restio, besides limiting the expenses of entertainments, enacted that no actual magistrate, or magistrate elect, should dine abroad anywhere except at the houses of certain persons. This law however was little observed; and we are told that Antius never dined out afterwards, that he might not see his own law violated (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.).

JULIA, proposed by the dictator C. Julius Caesar, enforced the former sumptuary laws respecting entertainments, which had fallen into disuse (Dion Cass. xliii.25). Julius Caesar adopted strong measures to carry this law into execution, but it was violated when he was absent from Rome (Cic. ad Att. xiii.7). He stationed officers in the provision market to seize all eatables forbidden by the law, and sometimes sent lictors and soldiers to banquets to take away every thing which was not allowed by the law (Suet. Jul. 43). Cicero seems to refer to this law in two of his epistles (ad Fam. vii.26, ix.15).

JULIA, a lex of Augustus, allowed 200 sesterces to be expended upon festivals on dies profesti, 300 upon those on the Calends, Ides, Nones, and some other festive days, and 1000 upon marriage feasts. There was also an edict of Augustus or Tiberius by which as much as from 300 to 2000 sesterces were allowed to be expended upon entertainments, the increase being made with the hope of securing thereby the observance of the law (Gell. l.c.; Sueton. Octav. 34).

Tiberius attempted to check extravagance in banquets (Suet. Tib. 34); and a senatusconsultum was passed in his reign for the purpose of restraining luxury, which forbade gold vases to be employed, except for sacred purposes, and which also prohibited the use of silk garments to men (Tac. Ann. ii.33; Dion Cass. lvii.15). This sumptuary law, however, was but little observed (Tac. Ann. iii.52, 53). Some regulations on the subject were also made by Nero (Suet. Ner. 16), and by succeeding emperors, but they appear to have been of little or no avail in checking the increasing love of luxury in dress and food (Platner, Exercit. II. de Legibus Sumtuariis Rom. Lips. 1752; Boxmann, Dissert. antiquario-juridica de Leg. Rom. Sumtuariis, Lugd. Batav. 1816).

Structure
As this article gets longer, should we make two separate 2nd level heads for (1) general restrictions on luxurious dress by status, age or profession, and (2) restrictions based on ethnicity intended to identify "others" (Jews and Muslims in medieval Europe), or to prevent ethnic identification (Ireland in the 16th century and the Highland Dress Act of 1746)? - PKM 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sort of done - in the medieval period the way the one flows into the other is maybe worth preserving. Johnbod 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Falconry
This stuff about falcons is I think just a literary conceit - I doubt any such laws were ever enacted (nor do Emperors seem to have taken advantage of their unique priviledge of hawking with eagles). I think I will leave it here until referenced as actually enforced by law:".... as well as what types and breeds of dogs or hunting birds an individual was allowed to own (An Eagle for an Emperor, a Gyrfalcon for a King, a Peregrine for a Prince, a Saker for a Knight, a Merlin for a Lady, a Goshawk for a Yeoman, a Sparrow Hawk for a Priest, a Musket for a Holy Water Clerk and a Kestrel for a Knave)." Johnbod 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Smoking bans
References to bans on smoking in public should not be in this article. As far as I can determine, no reliable source has ever linked the two. Adding general criticism and trying to link it to sumptuary laws is WP:SYNJQ 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those references absolutely were reliable sources. Your insistence otherwise violates WP:NPOV. The section is discussing use of the term "sumptuary law" today. Maclean's is "Canada's leading weekly news magazine", and the article in question did discuss smoking bans as sumptuary laws, also discussing what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. The article from Harper's Magazine also discussed smoking bans as sumptuary laws, and discussed in detail what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Lastly, despite the title, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, by David Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, discusses smoking bans as sumptuary laws in detail, as well as what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Clearly, all of these use the term "sumptuary law" and do so in the context of smoking bans. There is nothing wrong with that section or that reference. It is properly cited, and it isn't original research or synthesis. Read Brooks's book. Moreover, you deleted any reference to the book Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a very comprehensive resource which contains a plethora of information about alcohol prohibition, including the debates, discussions, and resolutions of each state to ratify the amendment, with considerable discussion of alcohol prohibition as a sumptuary law. These reliable sources and references to describe use of the term "sumptuary law" have been restored. 65.28.9.8 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Sumptuary laws are about conSUMPtion. There's nothing inherent in smoking that makes it a class issue. It's a health issue. The FDA regulations barring certain drugs from being available, for health reasons, are the closest parallel. Hey, when did public health and safety come into the picture? It sure had nothing to do with it originally. JoshNarins (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Baggy pants removed
I've removed the material about the baggy pants law in Georgia. Sumptuary laws traditionally restricted the use of high status apparel, not low status apparel, and a restriction on low-slung pants may be classed as public decency legislation, which is unrelated. The source does not call this a sumptuary law so its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH. Durova Charge! 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

religious bias in section on "sumptuary laws in Islam"
Forgive me if there is anything amiss in this note; I am in my first minutes of joining Wikipedia as a potential contributor. And this article was the inspiration.

The section on sumptuary laws in Islam seems designed to resonate with Islamophobic themes so prevalent in contemporary media and discourse. It gathers together a scattering of examples of sumptuary regulations in different times and places across a range of Islamic societies (a fatal critical and theoretical flaw in and of itself), all emphasising what appear to modern eyes as Islamic barbarity directed against Christians and Jews. It even goes so far as to insinuate a sympathetic Nazi-Islam connection by reference to yellow badges.

Examining the references confirms the suspicion of the author's potentially tendentious purposes - the academically notorious neo-conservative scholar Bernard Lewis and jewishencyclopaedia.com.

But the subtle anti-Islamic agenda isn't the only egregious fault here. Islamic states and civilisations met and intermingled with the adherents and institutions of nearly every old-world religion, from the tribal religions of East Africa and Southeast Asia to the multifarious Buddhist, Daoist and Confucian sects of China. An article that cherry-picks ONLY examples relating to one edge of Islamic civilisation and ONLY examples that are worded and presented in a way that feeds and enflames ignorant prejudices -- whether intentional or not -- should be unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Until this section can be balanced and its tendentious undertones removed, I think it should be flagged for its clear bias and flawed methodology. Timbehrend (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you objecting to any of the facts in this section? Or do you just think it not tactful to mention them?  You don't mention the much longer section on Christian discriminatory practices, I notice.  Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I object to the use of the facts. A section on sumptuary laws in the Islamic world that consists of one general section of two sentences and then a couple of paragraphs cherry-picking four or five exotic points about Christians or Jews is in its structure and contents inherently misleading. Let's say this were an article about "family organisation" that began with a vapid and general statement meant to cover all of Christendom, then brought in Mormonism and Hutterites in America and Canada as significant clarifiers of the general statement. That's what you have here. Timbehrend (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A month ago you opened a similar thread. You have a point about balance.  The section you object to is well-referenced and informative.  Wikipedia operates on an assume good faith policy, which means that in ambiguous situations we attribute bias as the last resort rather than the first. So if you think the Islamic world gets too much relative space then you're welcome to balance the article with referenced expansions about sumptuary laws in other places (East Asia, Africa, etc).  Durova Charge! 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The point is not so much that the Islamic world gets too much space. Rather, it is that the enormous diversity of a billion people, spread across much of the planet, is encapsulated away by sweeping generalisations. If a practice existed in early Syria and Iraq, then that's what ought to be mentioned, instead of lumping together people of the Far East, Western Africa, Central Asia, etc. Such generalisations are the stock-in-trade of Bernard Lewis, and of those who need to create a history of endemic Judeophobia for Islam. The editors of the article may not have intended it as such, but the contemporary context does call for an extra effort at making any merited distinctions.--P00r (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just now, I edited this section in order to take out, or ask for supporting quotations for, the generalisations. According to WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof lies with the original editor who provided the info. The cited journal was the only on-line source I've found of such a practice, and it is only an abstract -- one which does not support the generalisation about the "Islamic world." As there is a $25 charge for the article, then I have to insist on the aforementioned policy of a source that is "cited clearly and precisely."

Furthermore, and for the record, I have to note my objection to any consideration of Bernard Lewis as a reliable source.

Note also that this section is a duplicate of the material in Yellow badge. It ought to be replaced by a corresponding link.

Note also that the original edit (on 01:34, 11 November 2007 by 129.22.165.250) included the aforementioned article's contrast between the "Tattooing and branding" sentence and its following "Lead or" sentence. I added a "whereas" in order to reflect this, and to clear up the semantic confusion which which arose from its pervious version.--P00r (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I am asking for a quotation which demonstrates that neck-sealing was widespread throughout the Islamic world, and not tied to one or two geographical areas. In the least, the citation has to demonstrate, by precisely mentioning page numbers as well as by quoting, that the source was not merely the abstract of the journal article. Failing this, the lines have to be removed from both this article and its duplicate in Yellow badge, or narrowed in scope to whichever countries and periods which verifiably engaged in such a practice. --P00r (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Better sourcing would certainly be highly desirable throughout the article, but I don't think it gives the impression that any of these laws were universal. Most material relates to early periods when the central Islamic lands were in theory all ruled by the Caliph(s) and most of the wider areas had not yet been penetrated by Islam. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "Islamic world" is about as universal as it gets! No distinctions were made in geography or time. Also, AFAIK, that empire spread very fast; Islamic empire, too, suggests this for Robinson's period.

 * I can point out aspects of your own claim: "central", "early" and "theory". The latter is telling, in itself, and the formers, if verified, ought to have been reflected in the article.
 * But it really comes down to homogenisation of the Other! (For contrast, note the Christian and European sections of the article.) This is a crux of ethnocentrism. --P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to the Chase Robinson article on neck-sealing in early Islam. It is a good scholarly article based on original archive research. It is specifically about early Islam and relates neck-sealing to pre-Islamic practices in the Byzantine empire and throughout the ancient world. These were of course slave societies. This article does count as an impeccable source for a WP article even though not everyone can have access to it. Bernard Lewis is also considered to be a highly reliable historian. Where his work has been countered by that of other scholars then we cite both points of view. People might like to consider whether their views of Lewis's historical research might be unduly coloured by his later more polemical output. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you have access to the article, then do please add a direct quote to the article. I am neither questioning nor confirming such practices; merely that their geographical/cultural and temporal scopes have to be specified. (N.B. As I have not examined Robinson's, I am not implying agreement with its conclusions.)

 * As an aside, I consider Bernard Lewis to be malevolently incompetent. Blurbs and accolades don't sway me; analysis does!--P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very anxious though about whether most scholars consider branding of slaves and captives to come within the category of sumptuary laws. It would be very useful if someone could comment on whether these practices were regulated by Greek and Roman sumptuary laws, so that Islam is not singled out. As I said, the article cited makes it clear that there were many continuities. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It always comes back down to geography, doesn't it? Hence, in part, my insistence.--P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a copy of Reliance of the Traveller to hand? Can't recall if it discusses dhimmi and the regualtions concerning them or not, but if it does, it would most certainly be a notable source. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Title (Cavil)
The title should be plural. Being un-wiki-sophisticated, I don't know how to do this. Please someone do.

I confess that there is no rational defense for this prescription, other than, opposite Latin neuter plural, singular doesn't sound or seem right when describing this phenomenon, even if it may be technically correct. The fact that the entry begins with the plural suggests that the author agreed. Dstlascaux (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a strong preference for singular article titles - no doubt there is a policy somewhere. The plural should be a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sumptuary laws
I'd just like to point out that many of the laws described in this article are not sumptuary laws, at least as defined in the lead paragraph:

 * Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc.

For example, laws about branding slaves don't match this definition at all. So either many of the laws here should be moved to some other page or the lead of the article should state why a broader view is appropriate here. But right now the article is self-contradictory.

-Fenevad (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Toga virilis
Is the toga virilis related to sumptuary laws? It seems to me that the connection is wrong. Bazuz (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Landsknecht
i read somewhere that Landsknechts were excused from suptuary law and therefore allowed to wear their elaborate outfits because they had such a short life expectancy. Maybe can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.229.125 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors
There is no reliable evidence of any Roman law that compelled prostitutes to wear togas; and none that those togas should be yellow (iirc, the last is found in Smith's venerable encyclopedia, and it's plain wrong - he may have been thinking of the Galli, perhaps?) At any rate, there is no evidence in Roman sources that this supposed connection between prostitutes, adulteresses and the toga was anything more than one made in the service of poetical and literary invective. If there were evidence to the contrary, that would still not make it a sumptuary law. Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Article scope - what is, and what is not a sumptuary law?
The article intro seems to sum up the difficulty. There's a distinction between laws made to limit expenditure on luxuries, and laws made to compel the wearing of certain garments by particular social groups, on discriminatory religious grounds. Or is there? The article seems confused in its attempts to cover both the former and the latter; it seems to have generated several sections devoted to laws on who could (and who couldn't) wear x, y, or z; and who must wear a, b, or c; the most notorious example of which would be the Yellow badge and its antecedents. We also have articles (not very good ones) on Clothing laws and Dress code. Sheesh. I'm getting just as confused about what this article should (or shouldn't) cover; but would really like to clean it up and link to it. Any thoughts, suggestions or advice on all this? Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the whole I think you have to cover the whole lot. I rather doubt whether a difference between "you must not" and "you must" laws cab be sustained. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reckon that's right. Ta very much. Haploidavey (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sumptuary protocols
Any possible mention of 'strong advisories' by various kinds of ethical and health groups on what should be avoided (e.g. wine and strong drink) and what should be prioritized (e.g. comfortable, appropriate clothing)? MaynardClark (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a source for the type of material you're referring to?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia: Peter the Great reforms
His strict sumptuary laws need to be mentioned:

https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Walsh-Devan.pdf During the Reign of Peter the Great he challenged Russian culture with his reforms, the traditionalists in particular, opposedhis reforms that morphed fashion becauseit challenged their Orthodox religious beliefs and practices. The aggressive manner withwhich Peter the Great implemented his oppressive social reforms across Russian Society resulted in resistance which was not only justified,but also expected. etc.

Zezen (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sumptuary law