Talk:Barefoot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image removal

I've removed this image at the moment because I'm not sure exactly how this fits into the article. It's not being used anywhere else, so I'm putting it on the talk page as a holding place for now. WTF? (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

copyediting

I did just a little copyediting/wikifying, but since I'm not familiar with the topic I might have made some mistakes in categorization and rephrasing. Please make any necessary corrections. 68.81.231.127 08:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks, its really phantastic how quickly you improved my non-native English and categorized the article! Lorenz

My pleasure; it's a good article. The one thing left that really needs to be changed is: "The most commonly recommended are the barefoot parks...". A recommendation doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia, but I didn't know exactly what was meant by the statement. "Largest", "most well known", "significant", or something similar would be more neutral. 68.81.231.127 14:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Factual edits

The "wellness" section recapitulates the same new-age nonsense in the Barefoot article:

Going barefoot under the ideal conditions of the barefoot parks has multiple benefits for health. It acts against flat feet and varicose veins by toughening and training the muscles of feet and legs, it builds up resistance against cold and cough, it relieves dorsal pain by improving the motion sequence of walking. For children walking, jumping and running barefoot is of particular importance because lack of exercise during growth is a significant health risk.

Absent some (non-pov) sources, we can't in good conscience include this. jdb ❋ (talk) 17:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update required

The article can be adapted to current knowledge by a few modifications:

(I would do this immediately.)

- direct link to the recently revised web page chapter about European barefoot parks,

- update on number, local distribution, visitors and profit.

Further issues:

Worldwide view of the subject:

Most barefoot parks exist in Germany and Austria, some of them in neighboring countries and in the United Kingdom. It seems that Reflexology Paths are a similar thing that has arisen in Asian cities. One could think about combining the two articles.

Search in English web sites yielded scarce information on barefoot parks in english-speaking countries. I actually found two in the U.K. and one in Canada. Nevertheless the subject could be of interest for landscape designers around the world.

Citations needed:

Some German newspaper articles gave figures of visitors and profit of barefoot parks. One recent example is http://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/region/bad-kreuznach-bad-sobernheim-kirn/vg-bad-sobernheim/sobernheim/7927509.htm This article states 110,000 visitors in 2009 as well as 975,000 guests paying 1.76 million Euro entrance fees within the last 10 years. I wonder, if it makes sense to directly cite a handful of German articles, or if I better made a press digest on my own web space to cite it here as a review article. --Lorenz kerscher (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision finalized

I think I found a way to round out the subject including the Asian reflexology issue and to justify the removal of the globalize tag. Some independent sources also have been contibuted. Therefore in my opinion the citation needed tags also could be removed. I hope, all is o.k. now! --Lorenz kerscher (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Severe Vandalism

I've already tried to undo vandalism but it keeps coming back. I think this page needs semi-protection because the vandalism is from IP addresses.92.29.145.18 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Natural Motion

We need to work on a definition for "Natural Motion" Natural Motion is being used more and more. Its being used by running shoe company's such as Ecco Biom, Nike Free, and Newton running shoes. Natural Motion is running, walking, and doing any kind of movement in a natural manner, and is best achieved when barefoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.232.191 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not need to work on a definition of 'natural motion'. That would be original research. -- Donald Albury 00:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

This needs serious work. It implies that the only reason people don't go barefoot is because of the 3 listed points and not out of hygiene or common sense. There is also the point that its natural to go barefoot in the house if the circumstances are right, or at least to wear socks. If nobody edits the intro paragraph I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.58.88 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you failed to update it so I added the health risk reason. Thank you and goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.10.223 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is far too colloquial and speculative. I also question that statement that "many people also believe that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle barefoot". What is the evidence for this, or even its relevance?124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The belief is apparently at least common enough that the American Automobile Association has for years felt compelled to include a section in their Digest of Motor Laws specifically citing the legality of driving barefoot in each of the 50 states, presumably because they've gotten sufficient questions about it that they feel its inclusion is warranted. Relevance I'm not as sure about. It's also worth noting that, while no state has a law specifically prohibiting barefoot driving, most states do have blanket laws allowing a peace officer to issue a citation for any activity that, in their opinion, constitutes "unsafe driving"... which could well include driving barefoot. Such a citation might, or might not, stand up in court. Ptorquemada (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would there be a 'citation needed' on "Being barefoot is a human's natural state", has anyone documented the number of babies born with bare feet? Footwear is not an anatomical part of the foot http://www.healthcommunities.com/foot-anatomy/foot-anatomy-overview.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhy7s (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing began with someone putting in a "citation needed"-tag, though not actually disagreeing with the statement (as seen here). I reverted it, as it was silly. Donald_Albury put it back, stating that anything not covered in the body of the article, should be cited, even if it's in the lead section. This was followed by me being, inappropriately, pointy, until I was, thankfully told of for it. During the whole process, I asked: What sane person could possibly, honestly, challenge the statement that being barefoot is the natural state of a human? I also pointed to several wikipedia essays (When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed, You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, The Pope is Catholic), as well as the actual guidelines for citing. He countered with the essay You do need to cite that the sky is blue, though I cannot see how it could apply to this situation. After that I avoided doing more, to avoid starting, or being blamed for, an edit war, but other people have removed the "citation needed"-tag, obviously for the same reason (here and here), with Donald put it back every time, asking "if barefoot is so natural, then why do people cover their feet so much", which is rather an irrelevant question.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

...and now it's been removed for the fourth time, for the exact same reason. I have no doubt that will be reverted again.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is more on this topic, below--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Content additions

I think the article could be expanded with some information on torturing of the bare foot. Caning the bare soles of the feet and putting the bare foot into a device called the boot (torture) come to mind. I think a scene in Midnight Express (film) involved caning the feet. In the The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Esmeralda's foot is put in "the boot" and some films depict this. Some modern dances have been choreographed for bare feet and I think Isadora Duncan may have been one of the first dancers to regularly appear onstage barefooted. What dances are performed bare foot beside the hula? The sexual attraction of bare feet should be examined here. Licking the feet and toes, tickling the soles, etc. There are surely reliable (medical, psychological) sources about this paraphilia and it would be appropriate to mention the fetish here. There are probably clubs and organizations dedicated to this. What about work that is performed with the bare feet? One of the most memorable episodes in the "I Love Lucy" series featured Lucy pressing grapes in her bare feet and getting ito a fight with another grape presser. There's a film called The Barefoot Contessa with Ava Gardner and TV chef Ina Garten calls herself the barefoot contessa or something like that. While I could go one forever finding bare foot this or bare foot that I think torture of the bare foot, dancing bare foot, and the sexualization of the bare foot are essential in a GA article on the bare foot. SnowflakeWay (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barefoot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SnowflakeWay (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article will fail the 'broad in coverage' requirement. Going barefoot is universal but the article focuses mainly on western culture. I've mentioned some areas on the Talk Page which should be investigated for inclusion in this article: barefoot torture (the boot, caning, etc.); the sexualization of the bare foot; and barefoot dancing. Footbinding might also be investigated and included. Some passages appear OR such as this: "Bare feet have also come to symbolize innocence or childhood, and this may be one reason why hippies often went barefoot during the counterculture movement of the 1960s." This sentence is not cited. Nevertheless, it has the air of uniformed opinion rather than fact based on the rigorous examination of evidence. It's possible hippies went barefoot for other reasons such as comfort or lack of funds to buy footwear. Do barefeet symbolize innocence or childhood around the world? There are other uncited OR-type passages which strike me as unencyclopedic. The long list of pop singers who go barefoot strikes me as trivia and unencyclopedic. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and working on the areas mentioned. I would make an effort to 'globalize' the article rather than giving western culture all the weight. In spite of the section detailing the risks of going barefoot, the article is not neutral but reads as a screed supporting barefootedness. This should be adjusted.SnowflakeWay (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! You've raised several important points and I'm sure they will help improve the article. However, I am unsure of your actions here. Typically at WP:GAN, the reviewer makes one of four decisions: (a) pass, (b) fail, (c) put on hold pending revisions (most articles seem to be placed on hold, usually for about 2-3 weeks), or (d) asking for a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer. It's exceedingly rare for a reviewer to "suggest withdrawing", especially after s/he initiates the review by creating the /GA1 sub-page. Also, it's generally considered common practice to put all comments pertaining to the review in that /GA1 sub-page, instead of making extra comments outside of the review (as you've done with the 'content additions' section of the page). I do notice from your edit history that this appears to be your first GA Review, so perhaps it's best to ask for a second opinion by an editor more familiar with the six GA criteria. I think most of the issues raised are addressable within the "on hold" timeframe.

I do agree that the article needs a more global viewpoint, particularly adding information about asia and the pacific islands, and possibly the north/south american tribes (pre-european colonies). So I will work on adding that information.

Barefoot dancing is a good thing to add. I will look into that more and find sources.

As far as the "sexualization" comments, some brief information about foot fetishes and the like could be added, but there already is a foot fetish article, which is where most content on that should go. If you read most of the references cited, the vast majority of people that go barefoot really don't do it for sexual reasons. I don't think it's appropriate to turn this article into another foot fetish article anyways, which, if you look deeper into this article's edit history, is what some editors have tried to do (and, in fact, some of those same editors got banned for some of it). With regards to "torture of the bare foot", I really can't see what that has to do with going barefoot. A google search for torture of the bare foot or barefoot torture reveals little more than links to foot fetish, porn, or BDSM websites, none of which meet WP:RS sourcing requirements. You do mention things like caning the feet, or the boot device; and I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition probably has developed torture methods for virtually every part of the body. But torturing the feet wasn't really done because someone was barefoot. Sure, the feet probably weren't covered when they were tortured, but one was tortured in the feet probably to prevent them from walking or running away, barefooted or not.

Regarding your WP:OR comments, every single sentence in an article does not have to be cited with an inline citation (nor should every sentence be cited). Criterion #2 states that inline citations are required for, "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". If several sentences or an entire paragraph is backed up by one inline citation, it's generally customary and acceptable to put a single citation at the end of the paragraph, or after the last of the multiple sentences/statements being cited. I am also confused that, on one hand, you state, "The long list of pop singers who go barefoot strikes me as trivia and unencyclopedic." but in the 'content additions' section (above), you mention several pop culture items that you feel should be added. Celebrities and pop culture is still relevant to articles, and can certainly be included. What generally does not meet the GA criteria are the unsourced, bulleted lists of 'notable people ... blah blah blah' (see above: "contentious material relating to living persons" needs to be cited). But well-written prose mentioning various celebrities still meets the GA criteria.

Not sure how to address your comments on neutrality, which is partially why I think it's best for a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer. Perhaps you could provide some more specific examples. The first second mostly states cited facts about the history of people going barefoot as well as why people started wearing shoes, and I can't see why connecting bare feet with poverty would exactly "encourage" someone to go barefoot? The 'health implications' section mentions the positive and negative aspects of going barefoot, and even ends with a section on ALTERNATIVES to going barefoot. The rest of the article mostly mentions cited facts dealing with urban legends and sports/recreation, and the barefoot running paragraph even ends on a statement highlighting some of the dangers of running barefoot without proper preparation. The mention of barefoot placekicking also pretty much shoots down (cited, of course) the two major reasons why football placekickers perform barefoot. WTF? (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the article falls short of GA status, especially in the broad in coverage and neutrality areas. It's well-written - no prose or grammar problems - but it reads like an unencyclopedic screed supporting barefootedness. For me, it has an overall, superficial "Brief History and Joy of Going Barefoot" magazine article tone and feel about it that I consider unencyclopedic. There are subject areas that need to be examined and developed: torture of the bare foot; the sexualization/erotic attraction of the bare foot; dancing bare foot (hula, classical Thai, modern; Isadora Duncan, etc.); care of the bare foot (pedicure, foot baths, etc.); sensitivity of the bare foot, especially the sole; footbinding, and work performed with bare feet. The longer sections could be broken down into smaller sections. The religious aspects could be a separate section, for example, and further developed. At this point, you've more or less made it clear that you're not going to develop areas that I think are important to a broad coverage of the topic and I don't "buy" your reasons for not doing so. How can I not fail the article under the circumstances? SnowflakeWay (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• PASS

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• FAIL. Some of the longer sections could be broken down into smaller sections (the religious aspects could be a separate subsection and the individual sports could be separate subsections).

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• PASS.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

• FAIL. Some "controversial statements that are ... likely to be challenged" are unsupported (see OR below).

(c) it contains no original research.

• FAIL. Some statements appear to be OR such as the statement about hippies going barefoot because it is a symbol of innocence.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• FAIL. This is the main problem with the article. The article neglects several main aspects such as torture of the bare foot; the sexualization/erotic attractions of the bare foot; dancing bare foot; working bare foot; care of the bare foot; etc. Additionally, it is overwhelming focused on western culture rather than globval culture. Barefoot is universal.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• FAIL. Discussion of footwear such as chopines and pattens are not relevant to the topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• FAIL. The article for me has a cumulative, overall, unencyclopedic 'pro-barefoot' bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• PASS.

Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• PASS.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• PASS.

I have failed this article principally because it does not satisfy the 'broad in coverage' requirement. It neglects such important areas as dancing in bare feet; the sexualization of the bare foot; and the torture of the bare foot while cataloging trivial information such as pop singers who perform barefoot because they find it relaxing and marginal material such as a history of footwear in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Though the torture of the bare foot and the sexualization of the bare foot may be disturbing or distasteful to some, I consider these areas essential to an article about 'barefoot'. The article needs a broader scope and some work before GA status is achieved. SnowflakeWay (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, you're absolutely right about the western bias. I'd help to even things out, but it's a bigger challenge than I have time for.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition: Dance

Isadora Duncan performing barefoot during her 1915–18 American tour (Photo by Arnold Genthe)

The barefoot dance movement of the early 20th century challenged the laws of classical dance and the broader laws of social decorum. For decades, the bare foot had been perceived as obscene, and no matter how determined barefoot dancers were to validate their art with reference to spiritual, artistic, historic, and organic concepts, bare foot dancing was inextricably linked in the public mind with indecency and sexual taboo. In 1908, Maud Allen shocked and fascinated London theatre-goers with her bare foot dance of desire in Salome and scandalous tributes positioned her as the embodiment of lust. For many, barefoot dancing represented not only the freedom and horror of modern sexuality but the progress and decline of high culture.

Californian Isadora Duncan (1877—1927) revolutionized western dance by jettisoning the tutu and the pointe shoe of classical ballet, and, in works of her own choreography, scandalized theatre-goers by dressing in flowing draperies and displaying her bare feet. She anticipated the modern women's liberation movement by urging women to rid themselves of corsets and matrimony. Duncan divorced the bare foot from perceptions of obscenity, and made a conscious effort to link barefoot dancing to ideals such as "nudity, childhood, the idyllic past, flowing lines, health, nobility, ease, freedom, simplicity, order, and harmony". She believed her utopian dance program would ameliorate the ills of modernity and restore the world to the imagined perfection of Ancient Greece.

• Not complete. I need to look at Asian and Pacific Island dance but this section is ready to add to main page. SnowflakeWay (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, looks good. Seems to fit quite well in the arts and entertainment section. WTF? (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling

To add to the sports and recreation section : sumo wrestling, Turkish wrestling, and Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, a professional American wrestler from the Pacific Islands who habitually practiced his sport in bare feet and sometimes island dress. SnowflakeWay (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add wrestling in general? Though I guess greco-roman wrestling is commonly done today with shoes worn? WTF? (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, added. WTF? (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add Martial Arts in general? A lot of martial arts are done barefoot. Admittedly, it is sometimes done shod, but I don't know of any martial art, where practicing it barefoot is unusual.--213.113.50.189 (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Asian martial arts, maybe. But not other forms of martial arts. I have yet to see someone fencing barefoot.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maundy Thurday pic

Here's a pic for the religious foot washing section. Perhaps the size could be adjusted to accomodate both pics in the section

A bishop washes the feet of a parishoner who has walked to church barefoot on Maundy Thursday (Wrexham, England, 2007)

Saw that photo in the commons. Didn't really appeal to me because it seemed a bit busy, plus it was just a bishop and not somebody like the Pope. As displayed here, the caption is definitely too long -- it's almost half of the image display. Captions need to be short and descriptive of the image -- new information should not be presented in a caption, that's for article text. Personally, I kind of like the painting of Christ that's there now; seems to have a more historical flavor to it. WTF? (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion transferred fro peer review page

Comments. I'm happy to see you are seeking other opinions on your work but I am very disappointed to see that you are refusing any assistance in improving the article by reverting good faith edits that are meant to - and indeed - improve the article. The article needs to be subsectioned because it is difficult to locate any particular material. For example, if one wanted to locate information about religioun and barefootedness, one would have to slog through much material to find it. Please consider subsectioning this article for the convenience of the reader. I'm returning the section on "torture and punishment" because this is essential to any article about the bare foot. I suggest developing a foot care section (pedicure, footbaths, etc.) and a section on classical and modern dance in bare feet. SnowflakeWay (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to go back and review the WP:GAN rules that reviewers are NOT supposed to be major contributors to articles. The evidence, based on your edit history, is that you have not edited Wikipedia for over two months, and now you come in and post a "review" on an article at WP:GAN, unwilling to work with the editors to fix it, and instead merely fail it over a serious misunderstanding of the GA criteria and the WP:MOS. It's difficult to actually take your comments seriously when you have shown your inexperience. WTF? (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm have fulfilled my function as a reviewer by failing the article. That role is history. I'm not barred from contributing to the article because I once reviewed it. I'm inexperienced - but we all have to start somewhere and there appears to be no "school" here for taking lessons in revieweing GANs. I reviewed the article and found it failed the 'broad in coverage' criterium. It still does and it will continue to do so as long as it material essential to the topic is denied. I'm astonished you are actually refusing good faith help in improving this article. SnowflakeWay (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you actually take the time to read and understand the six good article criteria, you'll realize that "broad in coverage" does not necessarily mean "comprehensive", which is a featured article requirement. Every little detail does not have to be there, only the major topics need to be covered. WTF? (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

dance addition

The classical dance of Cambodia had its roots in the holy dances of the seductresses (apsaras) of ancient Cambodia, and attained its high point during the Angkor period in its interpretations of the Indian epics, especially the Ramayana. Cambodian dancers were well-born women of the king's harem and danced barefoot, with the feet turned outwards and the legs slightly bent at the knee to cushion the movements of the upper body. The unimpeded movement of the foot was essential to the art. When the land was invaded by the Thai, the dancers were taken to the Thai court where their art was adapted and continued to flourish.

GA?

It seems like most or all of the issues raised in the last GA review have been addressed. Should we make another go for WP:GAN? WTF? (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Barefoot movement

There are a few links to the barefoot movement e.g. in barefoot running. Sadly those only redirect here. I'd encourage someone to make a separate page, or at least section, for the barefoot movement. It certainly is a big enough phenomena, for mention here, isn't it?--213.113.54.43 (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Barefoot park

Virtually all of the content in the barefoot park article has been incorporated into the prose in the barefoot hiking section of this article, and I think the greater topic which "barefoot park" falls under is the barefoot hiking "movement", of which the parks facilitate that. Furthermore, the revision history of the barefoot park page contains only 100 edits since the page was created in 2004, so it's not a very high traffic and/or highly edited article. I think it would seem to make sense to merge it into here. WTF? (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, the article has been merged & redirected. WTF? (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Move article to new title?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Barefoot → Barefoot lifestyle — I propose to rename this article to Barefoot lifestyle, which I believe would be more descriptive of the article's content and purpose. The article really covers the topic of various individual's lifestyle choice to go barefoot during various activities. It's not really about the "bare foot" itself -- information about which would probably be better suited to an article on the human foot anyways. I think at an early stage in the article's development, it was at barefoot movement (which currently redirects to barefoot -- but "movement" isn't really the right word since the phenomenon isn't really an organized movement but really just a personal preference or lifestyle choice.

At present, the article cannot be moved without administrator intervention, since it is protected from moves. But a view of the page move log indicates no activity there for over a year. WTF? (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The current article title clearly does not conform to the policy for article titles: "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)". I'm not sure Barefoot lifestyle would be appropriate, as being barefoot at any particular time, or even all the time, does not necessitate conformance to any particular ideology. As a side point, the third paragraph of the lead seems to be in a somewhat unencyclopedic tone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those cases in which a noun title would be needlessly complex. "Barefoot" gets the idea across far better than any possible noun or noun phrase could. ("Barefootedness" would be the most direct noun form -- and it's silly to add the suffixes when the root adjective works just fine.)

• Oppose move; the article is clearly about more than just the lifestyle of people who regularly go barefoot. There is information about barefootedness in sports, and as punishment, and in the arts. Powers ^T 04:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the issue -- the punishment info really doesn't fit with the rest of the article, and I would also advocate moving that information into the foot whipping article. Sports & the arts are lifestyle activities as well, and would fit into the overall proposed title of "barefoot lifestyle". WTF? (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the most interesting aspects of the article is how perceptions of barefootedness have varied across cultures, over time, etc. This does not all fit nicely under a "lifestyle" title, and would not provide readers with the same insight if it was relegated to miscellaneous other articles such as etiquette, discalced, etc. --Avenue (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, athletics and the arts are parts of life, but that doesn't mean that going barefoot for those purposes constitutes a "lifestyle". Powers ^T 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "barefoot lifestyle". The current title better describes the article's content, although "barefootedness" would also be fine. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - You're conflating the general concept with the "lifestyle"/social movement, which if notable enough, could have their own articles, otherwise they can be a subsection of this article. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

unsourced material

I removed the following material from the punishment and torture section. It was added back in October by an anonymous editor and no sources are available. If it's added again, please use a reliable source. WTF? (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A variety of crushing tortures were applied to the foot. In ancient Scotland, a wet rawhide bag was drawn over the foot and leg and dried over a slow fire to contract and squeeze the foot. A more advanced technique involved splinting three vertical wooden boards around and between the bare feet and tightly securing the boards with ropes. Wedges were hammered between the boards and the feet to dislocate bones. A French boot splinted the instep between wooden boards with the toes protruding. The device was tightened by a crank to grind the metatarsal heads together and inflict agonizing pressure. The most advanced crushing technology was the foot press, an iron screw press that closed horizontally around the foot to crush the bones to powder. The press could be lined with teeth or spikes or even heated red-hot before use. So, a great variety of torture techniques involved the slow crushing of feet.

I have removed the following unsourced/untrue material:

"barefoot runners have a notably lower incidence of acute ankle injuries as well as less chronic lower leg injuries. This is due to a more natural gait, involving an initial forefoot strike and more of a rocking motion, as opposed to an initial heel strike, common with shod runners (vida supra). This running technique is practiced by some of the fastest known runners in the world, the Tarahumara people of northern Mexico. "

for the following reasons: 1) there are no studies that indicate barefoot runners have lower injury rates. 2) there are no studies that indicate forefoot striking is less injurous than rearfoot striking (the cited Lieberman study does not look at injury) 3) the Tarahumara indians are not among the fastest runners in the world at any distance. 4) According to one study, approximately 75% of elite runners are heelstrikers ( http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html ) --75.73.171.70 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)