Talk:Barefoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
Failed 0.7 Article
 This article does not currently meet the quality requirements for the Version 0.7 offline release. It is not currently being considered for later releases, as outlined in the notes left here. Please help improve this article if you can, and renominate after improvements have been made.
Nudity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

While I happen to agree with the opening statement, it's not NPOV at all.

In fact the whole article is POV and awfully poorly researched. Sam Hocevar 08:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 24 October 2007 Edits

I made them trying to get the NPOV and weasel tags removed. Dvorak.typist 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The activies section can not be a laundry list of things you can do barefoot, like Laundry, or watching TV. Its silly. Dvorak.typist 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this goes, but I know it doesn't belong there... Dvorak.typist 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some American football placekickers have also played with a bare kicking foot, citing better control over the contact between their foot and the ball as the reason. Paul McFadden and Tony Franklin (Philadelphia Eagles, 1970s & 1980s), Rich Karlis (Denver Broncos, 1980s), and Mike Lansford (St. Louis Rams, 1980s) were the only ones to kick barefoot regularly in living memory (Lansford was apparently the last of them to do so, in 1990). However, Tommy Thompson, a punter for the San Francisco 49ers (1997), punted with his shoe on but kicked off barefoot. And, most recently Jeff Wilkins went 9 of 12 barefoot over the St. Louis Rams' first seven regular season games of 2002. He went back to wearing a shoe in Game eight. (The NFL rules[1] stipulate that a kicker has to at least wear two socks. Barefoot kickers had one of the socks cut off so that they resembled tubes.)

[edit] Boristheblade and his off-topic edits

Boristheblade needs to reach a consensus of the discussiion before he makes unhelpful and off-topic edits to the article.

[edit] Barefeet and dance

Seeing images of barefoot dancers have sprouted within this article, it has come to my mind that since this article has become so comprehensive, that it could be encyclopedic to add a section of barefeet and dance. I understand that it would be reasonable to just make additions to the "Barefeet activities" section, but even more feasible of a solution would be to remove the "Barefoot Hiking" section of this article, replace that with a section on barefoot dance, and add a short paragraph to the barefoot activities section on hiking barefoot. I feel that this might be neccessary because bare feet to modern dance are like pointe shoes to Ballet. Virtually all dancers of the modern Genre dance free of footwear, and thus, barefeet are quite a major part of modern dance. If nobody contests this then I shall proceed to make the neccesary fixes to this article.

[edit] Asian Cultures

Isn't going barefoot inside someone's house a sign of respect in some Asian cultures? I mean I take off my shoes whenever I'm at someone's house no matter what culture. 72.197.133.100 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very true. You would garner many stares if you walked into a house with shoes.
I thought it was just supposed to be a sign of courtesy. I also thought that socks were okay as long as the shoes were left at the door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.84.105 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual edits

I snipped a bunch of stuff that was highly unlikely to be true and needed sources (not highly-pov articles by barefoot-culture types) to back it up:

=== Barefoot natural healing ===
Going barefoot and foot gymnastics act against flat feet and varicose veins by toughening and training the muscles of feet and legs. It builds up resistance against cold and cough, and relieves dorsal pain by improving the motion sequence of walking. For children, going barefoot is of particular importance because lack of exercise during growth would be a significant health risk. However, walking barefoot may be the cause of a hookworm infection.

Cold and cough? Right. Source?

=== Public spaces ===
Apart from a county in Massachusetts, USA, and certain boardwalks on the California coast, it is not illegal anywhere in the world to appear barefoot in public.

I doubt that very much. Blanket statements about the laws of the entire world are almost invariably untrue.

=== OSHA (USA) ===
== Health ==
Health department regulations always apply only to employees of an establishment, not customers. Even so, there are no known health department rules that mandate footwear. Signs that proclaim 'No Shoes, No Service, by order of the Health Department' are always fraudulent.

Whatever. See note about blanket rules above. Also, private businesses are free to refuse customers for not wearing proper attire (try wearing ripped jeans and a T-shirt to a black-tie restaurant, for instance.) jdb ❋ (talk) 17:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Being barefoot is so fun!

I've always been kind of flummoxed about the conflicting "expertise" regarding the health benefits/drawbacks of going barefoot. For every chiropractor, famous track coach, and podiatrist who insist its healthy and beneficial, you will find one of each who insist it is unhealthy and damaging. But it's hard to deny that a humungous taboo exists here, in every sense of the word. Western society has built up many negative associations with going barefoot; consumer culture demands that we spend a lot on shoes; many people don't even think twice about their assumption that being barefoot is inherently dirty and dangerous, even just walking around their backyard ("there could be glass somewhere!"). But we are subtly encouraged to break the trend, to go barefoot on "special" occasions like on a lush lawn after it rains or on the beach when we're on vacation - silly stuff like that. Whole subcultures exist that have incorporated being barefoot as an important element. Some people sexualize being barefoot, others are physically disgusted by naked feet. It's such a bizarre facet of our culture.
Might be interesting to add a section about "cultural elements" or "taboos" or something.

[edit] Barefoot to receive the Ten Commandments?

Changed "In Exodus, Moses had to take off his shoes before receiving the Ten Commandments" to "In Exodus, Moses had to take off his shoes before approaching the burning bush." If there's any mention of Moses' removing his sandals when he went up Mt. Sinai, feel free to correct me, but I couldn't find it in my Bible. In any event, I think the more common association with Barefoot Moses is the Burning Bush, if a second reference does, in fact, exist. :) --Jen Moakler 05:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade against quackery

I removed:

In European countries, many physicians stick to natural healing traditions and recommend going barefoot as a measure against flat feet, varicose veins, dorsal pain and to improve resistance against cold and similar infections. This benefit is believed to counterbalance potential risks. In the Far East, reflexology paths have been established to promote public healthcare. Much evidence for the health benefits of going barefoot has been collected on the page Parents for Barefoot Children.

Speaking of which, I consider the section of Parents for Barefoot Children simply to be spam, and should be removed. One link at the bottom is all that should remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.182.17 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 05:22:35 (UTC)
I'd like to see sources for these claims. The PBFC website's medical references page only discusses foot-related problems that can be avoided by going barefoot (supposedly -- every citation is to a lay publication save one). I would be floored if someone managed to find a respectable publication reporting that resistence to the common cold is improved by going barefoot to an extent that counterbalances the risk of hookworm infections. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Can we present this material in a more NPOV way without removing it entirely? Lots of people believe and/or espouse these views, including medical professionals. This paragraph is not the same thing as the admittedly lame claim that it prevents the common cold.
If we provide sources and make clear that the area is in dispute, sure, why not?. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a fetish page?

I can't quite put my finger on it, but some of the edits to this page seem to have an odd flavor to them, as if this page is substantially maintained by foot fetishists or something without being overt. If it's my imagination, let me know, but if anyone else sees this too, perhaps there should be a straightening up of this. I did some copyedit to fix some things that looked a bit off, but it wasn't a severe wringing. - CHAIRBOY 16:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's foot fetishists (who added the list of "barefoot celebrities") or quackery true-believers (who added the claims that being barefoot alleviates "cold and cough" symptoms), but this page has had a history of odd edits. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree there's a strange and unhealthy tone to this page. That obsessive picture caption really should go:
"Healthy feet and ideal footprints of a girl who regularly goes barefoot"
How about simply replacing it with "Bare feet"? Bastie 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an anon who keeps changing it to "A 12-year-old girl walks barefoot leaving footprints on the floor" without any edit summaries. Am I alone in getting a slightly creepy feeling here, as is if there is a pdeophile foot fetishist at work? Henning Makholm 14:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Female pop stars: For whatever reason, and for better or worse, a lot of female pop stars do, indeed, go barefoot on stage and/or in a lot of promotional material, album covers, videos etc., etc. You don't have to be any sort of fetishist to notice this as a cultural phenomenon. Sandie Shaw originated it in the 1960s, and should surely get a mention. Others who immediately come to mind, but are not listed in the article, include Kate Bush, Kylie Minogue, Grace Jones, Mariah Carey, the Bangles, Delta Goodrem, and Dido. God knows what this phenomenon signifies, but it probably should be acknowledged in some form. :shrug: Metamagician3000 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is super creepy, I came here from a page on flip flops since I thought it was odd that "barefoot" was a link. It's like a combination of weird apologeticism and all around weirdness. "Many barefooters are optimistic that with increased awareness, education and visibility, social acceptance will return to pre-1960s levels and in time, the illogical anti-barefoot sentiment of the late 20th and early 21st centuries will be little more than a footnote in the history of footwear." That's in an encyclopedia? Haha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.200.14.130 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I myself have a bit of a foot fetish, and yes, that does drive me to to improve and edit this article on many occasions, but a foot fetish is merely like any other interest in subjects, albeit a very strong one. I have never actually thought about writing anything unencyclopedic in this article, because it would be reverted immediately by the thousands of other readers that visited this page (Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.. Nonsense gets reverted in a matter of seconds these days.) Though there may be a few sexual deviants that pleasure themselves under their computer desks while they sneak in lines of pedophillic foot fetish nature and fetishistic images into the article, the drive behind those that came up with this article in the first place is foot fetishism, I guarantee you. Why do you think such a trivial and abstract topic like the act of going barefoot is given such an extensively specific article? Would most "normal" wikipedians that prefer vanilla sex with a woman in missionary position write pages about barefeet? You may quiver at the idea that there are several foot fetishists lurking around the dark corners of wikipedia, waiting for their turn to edit this page, but the reality of this page is born of people with an intense love for feet. Intoside 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities removed

I deleted the "barefoot celebrities" section. Enough is enough -- it seems like most of the edits to this page are to that list, which not only adds nothing to the article, but makes Wikipedia look like a fetish site. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a point – the list was a bit quirky. However, isn't it a historical fact and of legitimate interest that Sandie Shaw was notable for going barefoot, and that Zola Budd ran in the Olympics barefoot? Going barefoot does not imply having a foot fetish – it's a lifestyle choice. Maybe there's another way we could link to people who are/were notable for going barefoot. Ideas? --Portnadler 09:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had a further think and have added a category People who go barefoot. Then, anyone can add a person to this category without affecting the Barefoot article. --Portnadler 12:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The category has been renamed to Category:Barefooters. --Portnadler 09:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

Somebody added an "expert" tag to the top of the page. Which kind of expert do you want help from? The article attempts to carry a rather broad topic, from health aspects of barefooting, to the cultural and historical significance of bare feet, to practical issues facing contemporary barefooters. I think that only someone who goes barefoot himself would bother to know something about all that, but barefooters tend to be rather POV about this subject. (I am one myself, but remain unconvinced that bare feet in and of themselves are an encyclopedic topic). Henning Makholm 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see the point of the "expert" tag, so I've removed it. The article has been edited by several people over the past few weeks and (IMHO) has matured into a reasonably accurate and NPOV discussion of the topic. --Portnadler 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I myself enjoy barefooting incredibly, and know of(and participate in) a several bare feet forums, there may be some experts. Many people in the barefeet associations do research into that stuff. If you wish I can somehow obtain their assitance.--Whytecypress 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pumice

I have read that, some places in Africa, people generally walk barefoot, and that tends to make the feet hardened and crack up, so people generally keep some kind of stone, like a pumice at home to scratch away hardened skin with. If someone knows more, maybe it could be added to the article. 惑乱 分からん 09:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Nudity?

I've removed the "partial nudity" reference for the second time now. How ridiculous! Don't equate being barefoot in any way to being nude. Under this argument, not wearing gloves (and thus having bare hands) or wearing short-sleeved shirts (having bare arms) would be a form of partial nudity. When traveling to Russia 13 years ago, my group was advised that we should not wear short pants because the Russians found them offensive. Should I then use that fact to decry shorts as partial nudity because some people (e.g. Russians) are "embarrassed" by them?

(Off-topic) I think that either you misunderstood the advice or it was not very accurate. Russians in general do not find shorts offensive. Short pants are not as popular as in U.S., but Russians do wear short pants themselves. There are just a few exceptions.
  • A Russian will not go outside wearing shorts unless it's sunny and the air is at least 65 F. If you see a group of people wearing short pants in Moscow when it's 50 F and raining, they are likely to be American tourists.
  • Women rarely wear shorts because they are considered bad taste in clothing ( jeans are better than shorts, a dress or a skirt is best )
  • Shorts are a big no-no in churches, for either gender --Itinerant1 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The partial nudity reference is definitely POV. It was taken out once. Please leave it out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gschrive87 (talk • contribs) .

I agree a categorical statement that going barefoot is a form of partial nudity is POV. (I assume you meant POV, not NPOV.) But perhaps a better solution than simply deleting it would be to mention that it is seen this way in certain cultures, especially if we can give some examples and sources. To me, the variation in cultural perceptions surrounding bare feet is one of the most interesting angles here. [response by Avenue]
Thanks, I've changed it to POV -- don't know what I was thinking. There are different standards in different societies, true, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a culture that would regard barefootedness as akin to any type of nudity. Different societies may regard being barefoot, especially publicly barefoot, as unacceptable to varying degrees, but usually not for decency reasons. Normally it has to do with public health perceptions, job regulatory agencies misunderstandings (e.g. OSHA regs against bare feet in restaurants by customers which is false), or "safety" reasons (e.g. "You might step on glass!"). Perhaps changing it to note that different societies view barefooters with varying degrees of acceptance would be fine, but can we take out the partial nudity reference? --Gschrive87 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a tough one. In societies that accept flip-flop sandals, it is hard to argue that bare feet are consciously considered indecent. On the other hand, the "health" and "safety" objections are clearly post hoc rationalizations of something else that the objector cannot or will not state directly. My impression is that much opposition to barefooting does originate in a general perception that appearing in a public space wearing "too few" items of clothing is wrong, which I cannot but think is somehow related to the nudity taboo -- although not as directly as the contested sentence suggests. It is probably too convoluted a connection to try to explain in the intro paragraph. Henning Makholm 10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the world view might be on this. Here in America, whenever I hear anyone make a disparaging comment about anyone being barefoot in public, I've never heard anyone object to it due it being anything indecent or obscene. As I said, the number 1 disapproval almost always has to do with it supposedly being unsanitary (as if the bottom of a shoe isn't?), especially if one is in a restaurant or supermarket. Some quote supposed OSHA regulations against it "for health reasons". It would be interesting to poll people and see what the general objection is to bare feet. My guess is that it would be based more on these issues and not on the partial nudity basis. To be more NPOV in the article, perhaps a section on "Objections" could be added with a bulleted list of possible or observed objections to barefooters. This could be listed as one issue, that some regard it as indecent.--Gschrive87 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the "indecency" feeling is conscious. What I'm trying to say is that the health arguments are subconscious rationalisations of an objection whose real cause cannot comfortably be spoken or thought about. To consciously consider bare feet a form of nudity would for many non-barefooters be confusingly similar to considering the bare feet in front of you sexy, which would be perverse, so the superego censors it. (Hm... arrgh, I'm turning into an armchair Freudian. Heavens help me. Disregard everything I said. It's not as if it can possibly lead to encyclopedic content anyway) Henning Makholm 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically any 'part' of the body that is 'not clothed' qualifies as 'partial nudity' by definition, not a matter of POV, so ad absurdum even a burka which just 'reveals' the eyes; obviously the cultural perception as 'rather nude', not 'rather dressed', determines whether the term for a case fitting the technical definition makes sense in a given context, so Avenue's idea is a good one. Fastifex 11:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the concept of "partial nudity" is nonsense and shouldn't be included in the article. --Portnadler 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Nudity again

The nonsense about partial nudity is back. I thought the consensus was that we remove it. I have done so twice in the last 24 hours so won't do it again. What do others think? --Portnadler 12:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's gone now (unless I missed it). Hopefully it'll stay gone. Gschrive87 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed the Nudity categorization (again?). Also created Barefoot Running page and added a WSJ article on barefoot running to the External Links. - Bwilliams 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the "partial nudity" reference seemed a bit fetish-y. Still, it's been my experience that the fury - sometimes even violence - that bystanders occasionally display toward barefooters carries a degree of moral affront. It goes WAY beyond simple health concerns, and - as I can attest as someone who was once physically attacked for being barefoot - moves into the realm of sexually-repressed outrage. Hmmmm... maybe that "objections" header would be a good idea after all! -Satyrblade 17 May 2007

[edit] List of barefoot celebrities

Quite some time ago this article included a "list of famous barefooters". In late January 2006 it was converted into a category, which some time later got deleted. Now the list is back, and being populated by one or more anons. I have been trying to filter the additions, removing people whose main biography pages do not contain any claim about them being barefoot. However, this begins to feel rather like an uphill battle, and if some of the barefoot claims that are found on some bio pages are found to be wrong and are corrected, we have no good mechanism for correcting the list here (unlike a category, incidentally). Do we really want such a list here? If we do want it, can it be reliably maintained? –Henning Makholm 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like a rather odd list, I mean who really cares? Next we'll be putting up a list of celebs that have been known to scratch there ass in public lmao. Lists like these are just odd and not something to be found in an encyclopedia. Supra guy 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite that bad – I cannot imagine anybody wanting or looking for a list of positive role models for ass-scratching. –Henning Makholm 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody spoke up in favor of the list, I have now removed it. –Henning Makholm 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

lol no not quite, but still some people get crazy :P Supra guy 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a dedicated barefooter myself, I had posted the original list partly to support the earlier references to barefoot lifestyles, dance and artwork, partly to fill the huge gap that existed between the two headers, and partly to show that the lifestyle isn't something restricted to Third-World people, kids and hippies. I wanted to show "modeling" among media culture figures, and was wondering why folks kept deleting the list. On reflection, I realized it was too long and unfocused; on further reflection, I also realized that it was unsupported and apparently arbitrary. This time out, I've made a point of defining, explaining and supporting the list with links. Thanks for making me reflect on it, and please leave it intact this time. :) -Satyrblade May 19 2007

The prose paragraph is not bad, but I'm afraid that starting a list with it was a horrible idea. When I found it it had grown to an indiscriminate list of 70+ celebrity names. I have deleted the lot; even if all of these people could be sourced as being barefooters, it is not an encyclopedia's job to provide such lists. I let the prose be, for now, but if it keeps being a magnet for long lists of celebrity names I think we're better off without it. –Henning Makholm 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is such a weird thing to be having a "war" about. I agree that a list of 70+ celebs is a bit much - certainly wasn't my work or intention! The current draft works for me. Thanks! -Satyrblade May 29 2007

[edit] Hobbits

some people became interested in this kind of thing because of the Lord of the Rings Hobbit characters. perhaps this should be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.173.126.109 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images

Some time ago User:NuWildcat03 added this image: to the "barefoot lifestyle" with the caption "The soles of a woman's bare feet". Doubting that our readers need to be told how women's soles look like, I changed the caption to "In Western culture, bare feet are often associated with rest and recreation", because I thought that it could serve as an illustration of the mainstream perception of bare feet as an acceptable style for sedentary rest in leisurely contexts. The feet on the picture evidently have not been wakling unshod in the streets of NYC recently, their owner is reading a novel, and there might be a hammock involved. This reading of the picture does not fit really well in the barefoot lifestyle section, but I neglected to move it somewhere better, partly because it is not immediately clear where "somewhere better" is.

Recently User:ManiacMikey changed the image to 150.px, but kept my caption. The image now fits the section (this girl has been doing some real urban barefooting), but the caption now fits neither the image nor the section. I think the original image might still be useful to the article, but where should it go? Suggestions, anyone? –Henning Makholm 12:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The image has been changed once again, but of the same girl from a different angle. As for that first image, the book reading girl, I'm not sure if she actually fits in anywhere... I guess I could just stick in again somewhere in that lifestyle section, as an additional image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.26.166 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-13T01:29:07
The first image certainly does not fit in the lifestyle section, so sticking it in there again is not a good solution. –Henning Makholm 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I did so before, changing the main image, I believe the latest photo is more rational depicting it. Besides, we don't exactly what a photo of an 11 year old girl's feet on the picture, seeing as there are quite a number of perverse internet surfers out there, so in turn, I changed it to an alternative.

The age and sex of the person whose legs are shown in the main photo is immaterial, as many editors have stated in edit summaries whenever we reverted the anonymous perhaps-pervert who kept inserting such claims. Why do you suddenly bring it up again? Also, the central point about bare feet as discussed in this article is walking on them. Sitting barefoot is so uncontroversially mainstream that it is barely worthy of discussion in itself, much less depiction. Please stop replacing images in the article with your own ones. One is fine; more is boringly repetitive. –Henning Makholm 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But to the point as well; Wikipedia isn't here to bore or excite, but to educate and inform in an appropriate way.

[edit] Lead image

There's a minor edit war brewing here. User:ManiacMikey keeps changing the lead image to one of his photos of barefoot girls sitting on a tiled plaza (of which there is already one in the article). I keep changing it back to the original image showing somebody's lower legs walking barefoot across an empty floor, leaving footprints. I think the original is cleaner, more neutral, and less visually cluttered. It conveys what the article is about, nothing more or less.

Since we're apparently not going to agree, could somebody else please contribute opinions or arguments? –Henning Makholm 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the original image, Henning. I'm with you, and wonder why this is even an issue. The shot of the same chick halfway through the article is fine; the constant replacement of the original walking image is a bit much. *skritches own head in puzzlement* I have to wonder why all three of us care so much about this page in the first place. I've been referencing it for an article I'm doing on barefoot hiking (which I do), and every time I come back to the page the images are different. Note to the photographer: Please chill. One image of yours on the site is plenty. Thanks for that one - now let the old one "stand" (or walk, as it were.) -Satyrblade 29 May 2007

I agree with you, Henning. Walkerma 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I was a casualty in this edit war. I added Image:Barefoot by vshtevnin.jpg, which was removed with the note that I should discuss changes here first (instead of being bold, I suppose). So I'm discussing it here. I think this image is very useful, since it prominently feature's a child's bare feet in an artistic and playful way. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because you removed the current lead image, which has been subject of prior contention. I maintain that the current image is better for the lead than your proposal. It shows plainly and cleanly what the article is mainly about, namely bare feet being walked on. Your image contains a lot of visually confusing background clutter, not least of which the face of the depicted person – faces always tend to draw the attention away from other elements in an image. Also, the feet in this image seem to be bared only for as long as they are stuck up in the air; they show little evidence of the dust and dirt that they would have accumulated had they actually been walked on bare. The article is mostly about walking (running, dancing etc) in bare feet, so feet-in-the-air is less relevant as a lead image. (Not to mention that the perspective in your image is downright scary; I mean, feet half again as large as the girl's torso!)
I had actually moved that image down to the "Barefoot hiking" section, although I understand your reasons for wanting to keep it as the main image, and I don't object. (I have to say, I do rather like the perspective in my pic, although I can see why it's less suitable as a main image). Would anyone object to this photo being used elsewhere in the article? Say, in the "health benefits" section? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I'll put it in. Hopefully it won't be reverted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And an anon reverts without even an edit summary. What is this? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/51624016/ Whoopsie daisy. I think we may have a wee bit of a doozey here. By chance, a thief among us?

No, vshtevnin uploaded this image of his daughter. Making such an accusation without even looking at the image history is tactless -- if you'd looked, you'd see that the image uploader has the same username as the deviantart account name. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
3 The original account clearly stated "cousin", not daughter. WHOOPS!
Okay, cousin. Please stop removing the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you a dumbass?! o.o Its frickin obvious its some dude who types in "barefoot" at devart, and posed as a 'mother.'

Here we are trying to educate the masses, and you guys can't even see one tiny little deception like that!

Um, could we have some civility here? Though I fail to see which particular value this image brings to the article, the agressive tone employed by the anon here is quite uncalled for (and, by the way, led me to revert in Quadell's defence). 70.188.24.125 could you please provide a self-contained statement of your complaint about this image, instead of just some vague edgevise suggestions peppered with personal attacks and random expletives? –Henning Makholm 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Please stop making personal attacks. I didn't upload this image. I'm administrator at Wikipedia and I copyright issues are my specialty. I delete hundreds of unauthorized images every day, either because they're copyright violations of because they don't have proper sources or licensing information. This is not a copyright violation. It was uploaded to Wikipedia by the same user who uploaded the same image to devart. Now please stop removing this image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I'm contacting the original uploader about this. I know exactly whats going on, and I'm finding it insulting, that administrators can't even handle something this small.

>.>

http://vshtevnin.deviantart.com/ How can an 18 year old "mother" have a daughter that appears to be somewhere around 11? Besides, I don't think mothers mistake their cousins for their daughters! This is theft, its creepy, and it needs to be dealt with!

I'm going to have to eat a little crow here. I was angered at the anonymous user's removal of the image I added, without even leaving an edit summary, and his rudeness here -- and I confused information in the image name with information about the image uploader. It looks like the image might, in fact, be a copyright violation after all. I'll need to investigate further, and I don't recommend re-adding the image until this issue is resolved. (This doesn't excuse rudeness, however.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys on wikipedia have no life..

Nah, don't mind my "lack of life" and rudeness. I'm just a cranky old dude who's learned sometimes its better to be a dick. Now, I believe you have investigated this enough, and if you'll excuse me, I'll ONCE AGAIN...remove the stolen image.

[edit] Version 0.7 nomination

I don't think this article is ready for the offline release. The article is only "Start" class quality - it lacks thorough research, it seems to advocate "barefooting" (not a serious POV problem, but it does come across as a bit biased). It also has a lot of unhelpful, unencyclopedic content: "Boating is a sport that always encourages the riders to wear swimsuits and life jackets, and to always go barefoot, for water safety reasons" - is this really educating people about going barefoot? It' not wrong, it just seems weak to me, needing a good cleanup. There is the core of a good article here - please renominate it once there has been some more serious, cited content added. Thanks for the nomination, Walkerma 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the boating nonsense. The rest of the sport section still needs a good trimming and/or rewriting; it is tending towards an indiscriminate list of things one can conceivably do barefoot, and should be limited to sports where barefoot performance is sourcably common or where there has been notable instances. –Henning Makholm 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, this article is simply too biased. If you remove this "boating nonsense", it'll appear biased to the people who are into that sort of thing. Same thing with barefooting. Simply put, I've seen WAAAAY too much biased content on here regardless on which side it is.  :< Some people love it, some hate, but not everyone will be kept happy. This article is 10 years too early for a nomination...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Images (Part II)

Seven pictures seems an excessive number for this article, and it'd be nice if we could reduce that by at least one or two... as well as decide what pictures are gonna be in the article and try to stick with that for awhile. There seems to be a revolving door of images on this article. ekedolphin 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There. I cut it down to 3, if thats alright with everyone here. I tried to keep the most "relevant", or most fitting ones anyways. unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

reverted the cut of images. Should ask for consensus before performing such large edits. 0reteki 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Several weeks went by without dissent from Ekedolphin proposed trimming down the images to 70.188.24.125 actually did it. That looks like consensus to me. If you disagree with the trimming, please give arguments why we need that many images instead of hiding behind imagined procedural faults. –Henning Makholm 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okies. Awesome. Mind if I trim them down again? :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I tagged the barefood lifestyle section with NPOV. I removed this statement: "Many barefooters are optimistic that with increased awareness, education and visibility, social acceptance will return to pre-1960s levels and in time, the illogical anti-barefoot sentiment of the late 20th and early 21st centuries will be little more than a footnote in the history of footwear." That's a ridiculous statement for an encyclopedia to make. While I'm not anti-barefoot (I'm barefoot right now, and haven't worn socks in 2 months), contributors need to remember that Wikipedia is WP:SOAP. It doesn't matter how passionately you feel about <subject>. Opinions and bias, such as the statement above, do not belong in an encyclopedia. And don't tell me that "Oh, it's just a statement of fact, 'many' barefooters do feel that way." That's a cop out. Phasmatisnox 10:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The lead image has been changed - I prefer the old one, the picture of just the feet on sand - the current one it's not obvious that the feet are bare, and places more emphasis on kids playing than the act of going barefoot. Discussion? I realize there is a thread about this above, but it looked a bit acrimonious, was very long, and contained mostly discussion from July. How about a clean start here? WLU 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a new section is a good idea (though it is perhaps a bit premature to escalate to a !vote). I have taken the liberty of refactoring Freesoler01's comment down here too. –Henning Makholm 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My experience with images is that this is usually quicker than the alternatives I've tried :) WLU 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preference

[edit] Boys in water

Image:Boys in Water.JPG

  • I once again changed the lead image taking out the close up of someone's feet and substituting in a picture of three barefoot boys playing. I feel the close up shot was contributing the the preception that many users were getting that the page had become fetish oriented. I see no reason to have a close up of someone's feet like the. Everyone knows what a foot looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesoler01 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (this comment moved from July thread by –Henning Makholm 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Healthy feet

Image:Healthy feet.JPG

  • I prefer this image for its clarity regards the barefootedness of the walker, and there is little extraneous detail. Also an aesthetic preference, I think this one looks cleaner. WLU 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not follow Freesoler01's reasoning at all. It is quite a stretch to call Image:Healthy feet.JPG a "closeup"; I would call it a mid-range photo. I completely fail to see how that extremely plain and neutral image can possibly be considered "fetish oriented". It shows what the article is about, nothing more or less, and shows it as the main motive of the image. Image:Boys in Water.JPG is visually cluttered, and it appears to be quite incidental to its motive that the boys it shows happen to be barefoot. A lead image should have the subject of the article as its main motive or one of its main motives. –Henning Makholm 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, in addition to my points; further, if we're worried about fetishes, the current image is vaguely pedophilic to me, though whether that says something about me or the image...WLU 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I too prefer this image. It is straight and to the point whereas the other is distracting to the eye. Healthy feet focuses solely on bare feet, while the barefootedness in Boys in Water is only one factor of the image. I might change it myself if no one else does. Tricklin 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please leave this image up. Dvorak.typist 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be an article?

I think that most of this article is very poor, with much of what is mentioned having very limited notability. There is some good information (mainly in the religious/cultural depictions section) but I think that it would be better placed as part of the article on Feet[[2]]. Man from the Ministry 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You could always AFD it and see what the community says, but I'm guessing it'll pass WP:N. Perhaps it could be moved to a better article name and/or tailored to focus more on the cultural aspects, but a merger to feet would probably be out - it'd be a large article that mish-mashes topics. Also, I took the liberty of simply erasing the sinebot message and replacing it with your signature. WLU 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :)

I think perhaps moving the cultural aspects of feet to their own article (linked in with articles on the cultures and the main 'feet' one) would be a good move. I have no idea what else in the article is really worth saving.Man from the Ministry 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Okay, here are some of the problems I see with the article:

Use of the word 'practice' in the opening statement. A better word could probably be used, as 'practice' makes it seem like some sort of set religious, spritual or health based activity. If such a belief does exist then it needs sourcing. Even then it shouldn't constitute the introduction but should probably have one section. This article overall should be about bare feet and all cultural opinions on them, not just one.
Differentiation between developed countries and non-developed countries. Should obviously be mentioned in the article, but I think it could be better placed in the main article somewhere.
Use of the term 'Self-Identification'. This term seems far too woolly for my liking. What does it mean? Does it have psychologial or sociological work backing it? Sources are needed but my instinct is that it needs removing from the article.
'Reasons to self-identify', This sentence needs sources, and should probably not be in the introduction. This article is about the concept of 'barefoot' in general, not specifically about any beliefs in 'barefooting'.
The 'Barefoot Lifestyle' section is firstly unsourced, and secondly seems too far up the article in terms of importance. I think something like 'Religious-Cultural aspects should come first. In fact I'll make that move now.
The section on regulations regarding bare feet has potential but may need a bit of clean up.
Likewise, the section on health risks and benefits has the potential to be a very good section, but needs massive expansion and sourcing.
'In television' seems very out of place. Needs sourcing and ultimately could probably do with removal.

I have made one of these edits, which I believe helps with the balance of the article, but I'll leave all others up for discussion.Man from the Ministry (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the lead section, attempting to address the first four of your issues. I think "self-identify" started out simply meaning "people who call themselves barefooters", but it seems to have morphed into a more fuzzy kind of subjective sense of self. Better to avoid it, I think. I ended up removing the part about industrialized countries completely. It seems to be a fact that it is predominantly in developed societies that some people find it necessary to make a deliberate choice not to wear shoes, but explaining why it should be so without straying into original research seems to be impossible, and without an explanation the core observation is not encyclopedically relevant. –Henning Makholm 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good edit, Makholm. The opening is already looking much better.Man from the Ministry (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek gods

Greek gods seemed to be always depicted without shoes. Does this have to do anything about this article? --Kushalt 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably did mean something in the time period, but it would be very difficult to know what. If you can find a source on what some art historians think, that could be a useful addition to the article.Man from the Ministry (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked the Reference Desk about it. This is a copy of the conversation.

=== Barefootedness === Was barefootedness associated with being God in Greek or Roman periods? Do you have good, citeable web articles for this ? I knw that Augustus of Prima Porta was barefooted but do we know when it started or somwething? I wikilink to a specific article about being unshod and its relation to rligious deities would be helpful as well. Thank you. --Kushalt 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

this should be able to help you a bit, search for The Bare Feet Speak: Nonverbal Messages of Barefootedness for the relevant info. Sorry, I am not aware of anything onwiki regarding this, other than in the different articles related to Greek mythology and which gods were always depicted as barefoot. Dureo 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks --Kushalt 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the above exists in my talk page.

Regards, Kushal --Kushalt 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] lead paragraphs

Paragraph two (I edited it to make it a separate paragraph) and paragraph three seem to contadict each other. Paragraph three seems to imply that being barefoot is a matter of choice and if you are barefoot because you don't have shoes, you are not a barefoot.

Enlighten me if I am wrong because this is definitely what the editor really says with the paragraphs. --Kushalt 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Its my fault. Now I see that the lead is trying to say that bare foot and barefooter are two separate terms. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Kushalt 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you requested a citation for "barefooter" (by the way, you should use the {{fact}} template for such requests instead of coding the markup manually). It may be difficult to source an authoritative meaning of the word in general, but would you accept http://www.barefooters.org/ as a source for "Some people who prefer (etc, etc) call themselves barefooters."? –Henning Makholm 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that link could be very useful in the article, but I feel that the 'barefooter' paragraph in the introduction would be more useful if merged with the 'Lifestyle' section (which is the section requiring most sourcing/cleanup work in my opinion). I suggest the paragraph be moved to form a decent introduction to the 'lifestyle' section, using the Society for Barefoot Living page as proof that such 'lifestylers' exist. I think that other sources should be sought for the rest of the section though, rather than relying on that one website. -Man from the Ministry (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)-
Fine with me. Incidentally, I would like to find a different word than "lifestyle" for that section. I'm a pretty diehard barefooter myself (never donning shoes but in the deepest winter), but still to use the word "lifestyle" about it feels fairly high-strung. My choice (or lack) of footwear essentially does not inform what happens in my life above ankle level. –Henning Makholm 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for not using the fact tag was that I am not competent enough in the subject. There are millions of words in English today. No one claims to know all of them. I sincerely believe that the word barefooter could be a legitimate term and might be an obvious fact to someone who is used to it. Please feel free to rollback the manual markup in case this is an obvious fact. Thank you. --Kushalt 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. it is already fact tagged. --Kushalt 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - because I converted your markup to a tag. There is nothing wrong with using a fact tag when one is genuinely unsure whether the information is correct. All too many people use the fact tag to mean "I assert that the previous sentence is false!" but that is not what it says, nor what it means. If one knows for sure that something is wrong and it does not even purport to be sourced, the correct thing is not to slap a fact tag on, but to remove or correct the claim immediately. Fact tags are exactly for things that may well be true but where it would improve the encyclopedia to source it anyway. –Henning Makholm 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in opening

but less common in industrialized countries due to greater societal taboos against going barefoot.

What, like that's the only reason? Industralized nation's tend to have PAVED streets and walkways, which are often abrasive to promote friction when wet, but which tear the hell out of bare feet. Not to mention the hazards of broken glass, cracked pavement, et cetera. Some barefooter partisan obviously wrote this sentence, and it needs to be modified. (24.160.248.173 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Necessary?

Is it really necessary to list a bunch of fictional characters that are barefoot? I don't see how this is important. KJS77 Join the Revolution 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)