Talk:Cloak

comment

Removed the Naruto line, as the specific example just didn't fit the listing of general usages listed. And a listing of every character in every book that uses a cloak is not something to be useful for a fashion page (and certainly wasn't for me when I browsed here hoping for the distinction between cloak and cape). It's not even a good (or clear) example of "cloak and dagger"--it seemed only to have that phrase and not its meaning--as opposed to the Harry Potter example which is clear, useful, and short. --Squeeself 10:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. In contemporary usage, I would say a cape has shaped shoulders and a cloak doesn't, but that distinction is not true historically (some 16th and 17th century capes have sleeves and are almost indistinguishable from jackets). - PKM

In my mind, a cape is generally a shorter, narrower cloak, not intended to be able to wrap entirely around a person. I also have never heard of a cape with a hood (unlike cloaks, which frequently (or always) have them). According to the OED (for Cloak):

1. A loose outer garment worn by both sexes over their other clothes.

2. a. An academical or clerical gown; particularly the Geneva gown. Obs. or arch.

According to the OED (for Cape):

¹A cloak with a hood; a cloak or mantle generally; an ecclesiastical cope. (obsolete)

²1. A Spanish cloak (with a hood). Obs.

2. The tippet of a cloak or similar garment, being an additional outer piece attached to it at the neck and hanging loose over the shoulders (e.g. in old riding-cloaks, infants' pelisses, etc.).

3. a. A separate article of attire, being a kind of short loose sleeveless cloak, fitting round the neck and falling over the shoulders as a protection against rain or cold. Waterproof capes of this kind are in common use.

If you eliminate the obsolete definitions, you can get a sense that a cape is a lesser version of a cloak. The Jade Knight 00:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

High importance?

I am not sure how this article got rated as such. If anyone is reading this, then we are in the remotest corner of the oddest subculture in the universe. If we were virtual, we could hide here for a million years. This article is an oubliette. Strangely cool.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Male usage of cloaks

The page though its illustrations gives the impression that cloaks are either primally or soley women's clothing. That is absurd. First Consider the phrase cloak and dagger. Who is wearing the cloak then? Almost invariably a man. (Although unbuttoned overcoats have been known to serve as a substitute.

Not to mention that superhero capes are full length or longer, generally non-wrap-around cloaks. The page could use an image or two of mens' cloaks. 129.74.229.113 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hercules

The Hercules part under fantasy needs to be removed. Myths are not "fantasy". Gune (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be better to rename the section, rather than remove any example that doesn't fall under 'fantasy' which can be a fairly ambiguous term. The Hercules example is a good one to have, in my opinion, because it's probably one of the earliest known examples of magical properties being attributed to a cloak. Maybe something like 'Fiction' or 'Fictional properties of capes' would be a better example.

On a related note would it be worth including Dungeons and Dragons as an example? Cloaks are fairly common items in those games and almost always worn primarily for magical properties rather than for fashion or protection from the elements (although they can protect against elemental magic). I don't have a source to hand but I suspect, given the influence DnD as a whole has had on the genre that this has done a lot to perpetuate their use in modern fantasy. 82.68.159.246 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Riding Hoods?

What is the difference between a Cloak and a Riding Hood? Is that just a different name given to the same thing, or is it like the difference between Capes and Cloaks? - 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:602E:DA94:43DF:9C99 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusion in the Introduction

In the introduction I found:

Cloaks have been used by myriad historic societies; many climates favor wearing a full-body garment which is easily removed and does not constrain the wearer with sleeves.

A climate cannot favor the wearing of anything: the fact that a climate is rainy in spring and summer, in autumn windy and rainy and chilly, and in winter windy, freezing, and snowy, cannot incline the people living in it to wear full-body garments, rather than separate garments for legs, torso, neck, and head. I do not know of any people who would make garments that could not be easily removed, so no climate is necessary to prompt them to conceive of easily removable garments. Moreover, sleeves do not constrain the wearer, or else nobody would have conceived of shirts and blouses, sweaters and jerseys, or jackets and coats.

Finally, historic means "of great significance in the annals of history"; the proper word is historical. That said, since there are still societies in which people wear cloaks, even "historical" would be misleading.

The passage should run:

Cloaks have been and are worn in countless societies. Wordwright (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I take these points. One might add that the degree of tailoring necessary to make something like a modern overcoat was a relatively late development. Cloaks are actually poorly designed for people working with their hands, but not bad for riding. I don't like "countless" - maybe "Cloaks are simple to tailor, and have been worn very widely throughout world history". Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Other cultures?

This article notes very little societies that wear cloaks. I wanted to learn about Celtic cloaks, but there’s nothing here about those. We should be more inclusive. 98.97.38.180 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)