Talk:Barefoot/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unclear sentences

This article twice refers to people citing "nonexistent" health regulations but then says that these regulations apply more to employees than to customers. How can a nonexistent regulation apply to anything? Does this mean that there are regulations in place but they don't apply to customers, or does it mean that there are no regulations at all? Redcore4 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you will find your answer by reviewing the cited article, which also goes further to cite several OSHA regulations itself. WTF? (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

UK, Australia, New Zealand

This article is coloured by the social issues concerned with going barefoot in the USA (and Canada), an in places dwells on anti-barefoot rules, and is an interesting read for non-Americans. When it's next reviewed, experiences from outside the USA might be used to balance it, so I offer the following:

I often do without shoes in England, Australia and New Zealand. There are no "shoes must be worn" signs up anywhere, and it's very rare for any business to object, or pay any attention. This indifference may reduce further from the South East part of England but I don't have enough experience to be certain. The vast majority of people do wear shoes, except by the sea shore or lakes or where there is sand/water about, or in public parks or gardens in summer. Children are more likely to have bare feet, especially younger ones. In Australia, especially warmer parts, bare feet are somewhat more common than England and in New Zealand it was common even in the centre of Auckland (last visited 2003).

This article states that "barefoot parks" exist in the UK. I'd never heard of such a thing, but I went looking and according to The Times of 30th August 2008, one opened recently in Staffordshire. I'd be surprised if there were any others.

Driving: The UK Highway Code 2007 Edition Section 97 (which isn't exactly the law, but if you break it you effectively have to prove you were right and it was wrong in the circumstances) states "Before setting off. You should ensure that... clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner." Interpret it as you will, but it doesn't say "no bare feet". It does imply no flip-flops (thongs) or anything that can interfere with the pedals. A police officer (getting very anecdotal) once told me the rule was "Footwear must be appropriate and firmly attached to the foot". Fjleonhardt (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bare feet are common here in New Zealand, at least in summer. I wouldn't say it was exactly common in downtown Auckland though. There's nothing about driving barefoot in the NZ road code, as far as I can see, although they do recommend that cyclists wear closed-top shoes[1] and that motorcyclists wear boots.[2] --Avenue (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Firewalking

Seems like Ewawer wants to be adamant that this material doesn't belong in the article, and is deleting it as it's own subsection:

Firewalking is the practice of walking barefoot over hot coals. It has been practiced by many people and cultures in all parts of the world, with the earliest known reference dating back to Iron Age India – c. 1200 BC. It is often used as a rite of passage, as a test of an individual's strength and courage, or in religion as a test of one's faith. Today, it is often used in corporate and team-building seminars and self-help workshops as a confidence-building exercise. Firewalking implies the belief that the feat requires the aid of a supernatural force, strong faith, or on an individual's ability to focus on "mind over matter". Modern physics has largely debunked this however, showing that the amount of time the foot is in contact with the ground is not enough to induce a burn, combined with the fact that coal is not a very good conductor of heat.

I disagree. It's completely relevant, and watering it down is only contributing to WP:DELETIONISM and the downfall of Wikipedia. The material is well-sourced, relevant to the article, and should be included. WTF? (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Barefoot" performers

I have moved the following from the article page because they are unsourced:

[[Ronnie Van Zant]], [[Erykah Badu]], [[Björk]], [[Deana Carter]], [[Jewel (singer)|Jewel]], [[Patti LaBelle]], [[Cyndi Lauper]], [[Jonny Lang]], [[Natalie Merchant]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Linda Ronstadt]], [[Joss Stone]]

There are already several performers listed as performing barefoot, with sources cited. Please do not add your favorite performer back in without citing a reliable source for the fact that they habitually perform barefoot. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And I have now reverted you and reinstated the information. Please read BOTH of the citations provided on that sentence. The one at the end of the sentence (NY Times article) contains the citations necessary. WTF? (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Habitual vs. occasional barefooting

I have twice removed unsourced material purporting that people who habitually go barefoot do not suffer the injuries and/or infections listed in the article. This kind of claim needs to have citation to reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

materialism

ZarlanTheGreen has removed the following text from the religion section of this page, citing that it's "trivial" and "non-notable":

In Shropshire, United Kingdom, Reverend Prebendary Stephen Lowe of the Anglican Church went barefoot for four years – save trips to the hospital and brief periods of cold weather in the wintertime – in an expression of his belief that we do not require as many things as we imagine we do.[3]

I respectfully disagree, as it helps to convey the aspects of barefootedness in going against materialism in a major modern religion. While it's certainly recent, I don't think this falls under WP:RECENTISM, either. Sure, some may consider it to be technically "trivial", but I don't think it falls under WP:TRIVIA, either. It's just one additional, cited example that can be used to strengthen the article. WTF? (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The story is about one single guy who thinks we can do without shoes, and goes barefoot. That's not a hard thing to find, and is of very little value. Furthermore, it's put in the religion section, despite a lack of any religious aspect. He happens to be religious, yes, but that has no bearing on the story, what so ever. There is no religious connection to the barefooting in the article, in your arguments, or elsewhere. He argues against modern society being overly dependent on having a lot of things. That is, in no way, related to, nor reliant on, religion. He never states any religious reasons for going barefoot. He never states that religion as a basis or even influence. In fact, he never mentions religion, in any way, nor does the journalist (aside from mentioning that the person is a priest).

Also, reverting it back (twice!), without any form of explanation, instead of trying to discuss the issue, is rather bad form. I felt no actual need to explain the second time I removed your addition (as I already had), nor did I feel I was out of line, as I was only removing something that was added by someone, who was acting out of line, in doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of acting "out of line". My actions were re-adding deleted material, which is perfectly acceptable. The first two times I didn't feel the need to comment because I was merely re-adding something that was cited that I assumed a new and unfamiliar editor was deleting for no apparent reason other than because he/she thought it was "trivial". But since you are apparently new and unfamiliar, that's why I'm bringing it here now (which I probably should've done at least an edit ago, so apologies on that).

I disagree that it's trivial. While I wouldn't write an entire wiki article about the man, I think his actions are noteworthy enough for a brief mention in this article, since it deals with the issue of materialism, which is one of the points our article is trying to make. If his actions truly were trivial and non-notable, then why did BBC News choose to write an article about him? Still, I am not advocating writing an entire paragraph or section about it; it's just a cited statement. WTF? (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I resent the comment that my actions are those of someone new and unfamiliar. While I am somewhat new, I am not so new that I don't know that you can't just add something back, that's been removed with a clear explanation, without even saying why. No matter if you've made references or not. I may not know all details of wikipedia policy, but I certainly know some, which you didn't really seem to follow, such as WP:BRD.

As to the article's noteworthiness: As I've said, it's one story among millions. His story is not significantly different than that of tons of other barefooters. How is his story worth mentioning? ...and just because BBC News had a story about him, doesn't make it worth mentioning on wikipedia. If you included everything, that BBC News writes an article about, wikipedia would be a very different place. BBC News is a newspaper. Wikipedia is not. They have to write a lot more often. Wikipedia makes one page about a subject, and is then done with it (aside from refining the article). Newspapers write new stories all the time, and they do more "little" stories (such as making a whole article about about one, otherwise non-notable, persons view on a specific subject) and less about a greater overview of the situation, that a place such as wikipedia is all about.

Then we have it's place under the religion section... You have yet to explain why it belongs there. It has absolutely no relation to religion, after all, and you have yet to dispute this or offer any form of explanation. Are you avoiding the subject? If not, please explain.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)