Talk:Shoe

Removing Shoes

There's a growing list on the article of cultures where one would take one's shoes off before entering the home, and it's becoming more and more strange to me. Japan I know, and have witnessed myself. But Sweden? Canada? Can anyone verify these purported facts? And if a friend of mine is fanatic about dirt and asks shoes to be taken off before entering his home, should I add my country too? Maybe we should only list countries where taking off shoes is the most common practice, more common than keeping them on. Do Sweden and Canada fit this description? Nyh 07:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Take your stinking shoes off entering my home!" It's common where I live (Toronto, Canada) Sure, there are lazy people everywhere (which seems to support a variation of the five-second rule), and I guess people who like cleaning daily, but a lot of people insist on guests removing shoes just like they insist on them not smoking in their home. I mean eww, if someone's been stepping out in the world in all kinds of crap.. I don't that crap tracked all over my floors. I guess that's a variation of the Japanese clean/dirty zone idea. Inside clean, outside dirty. -- Sy 10:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here in Hungary we usually take off our shoes before entering someone's living room, and leave the shoes in the hall. The host usually politely insists that "you don't have to take them off" but the guest takes them off anyway. I don't know if it's a custom in other countries but I'd definitely remove my shoes before stepping on someone's carpet. Alensha 16:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page Flying Shoes should be linked to this page.

Here in Sweden, we always take off our shoes before entering someones (including our own) home. Everybody does that. - Drogo 00.43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT+1)

When I went to Sweden, the Swedish guy whose flat I stayed round made a point of saying “In Sweden, we take our shoes off…” So, seems reasonable to me. The difference with Japanese is that there shoes are removed before entering all sorts of other places. Bombot 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In my neighborhood, it's considered extremely rude to ask someone to take their shoes off. You're likely to be questioned when you last cleaned your floors. 72.87.188.149 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Canada fits the description. Every private home I've been too, it's expected to take off your shoes, even at parties, open houses, etc. It actually seems very odd to me that people wouldn't... Claude.Xanadu 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (gah I always think I'm logged in when I'm not)

and yet without some kind of citation it shouldn't go in. So far just personal Observations i.e. Original research. Curious how the sweat and bacteria, fungus and so on on bare of socked feet is somehow cleaner than shoes wiped on a rug before entering. Especially since you don't eat on the floor. Its like demanding people wear gloves before greeting someone with a handshake. Do you know if your guests have washed their hands before coming to your door and greeting them. Knowing germs your more likely to get something from your hands then from someone elses shoe on your floor and somehow you getting it inside your body.--Xiahou 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where would you find a citation about taking off shoes? It's a cultural norm, the culture's the closest to a citation that's ever possible. You ain't gonna get any studies about shoe removal policies. Also, btw, at the risk of getting into a flame war on wikipedia over shoes, it's not for the reason of dirt or fungi that we take off our shoes, but the much more difficult to clean mud and moisture, that is common in our winters (evidence is any public shopping centre in winter with its brown entryways, and muddy snow goes up the crevices of the soles making wiping shoes off not effective). I'm not saying its wrong to not remove ones shoes, just that it is completely unheard of everywhere I've lived (that's in many locations all around Canada). I think that's citation enough. Claude.Xanadu 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A British Perspective:- In the UK, taking shoes of because of expensive fitted carpets (now quite unfashionable - wooden or tiled floors with rugs or traditional rectangular carpets are more up-market) is seen as being a lower middle class/upper working class preoccupation, originally started back in the mid 60's because they did not have the money to replace them or have them cleaned regularly. Amongst my circle of educated middle, professional upper middle and upper classes, it would be considered extremely rude to ask people to remove their shoes at the door, - women don't spend £100 to £500 on a pair of exquisitely wrought high-heeled shoes that complete their outfit (and add considerable sex appeal!) to remove them at the door! Similarly a male outfit isn't complemented by the absence of shoes either; imagine a formal dinner party with the men in their tuxedos (or equivalent modern jackets), Highland Dress or Officer's Mess 'Kit' parading round in their socks! Besides, who arrives to dinner (formal or otherwise), luncheon, afternoon tea, cocktails or supper except by car or taxi? A good look at any good quality male or female shoe or boot will show you that they have smooth soles and any decent doormat and mud grid will remove all traces of dirt from shoes such as these; if it doesn't you need to get some more shale or gravel put on your drive or have it paved or cobbled as in 'suburbia'! Of course if you are in the habit of wearing heavily treaded rubber ridged soles or 'trainers' (sneakers/tennis shoes etc.) outside of the Gym or when not jogging, then you won't have the slightest notion of what I am talking about!

Shoe History

Does anyone know about the history of shoes? I am very curious when people started wearing them, when they went from being a thing for nobility to something for everyone, what early shoes were like, etc.--128.118.113.158 12:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting article in the bbc about the history of the shoe, although more relating to prehistoric times from an anthropological rather than social sense. -- postglock 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

lol...

• Nailers - shoes with very sharp nails that stab into the feet in order to draw blood
• Shyts - shoes considered to be largely and significantly homosexual

Are these for real? Bastie 20:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Trainers

What are trainers, and why are they so-called?

trainers are sneakers or sport shoes. they are called that because you train in them.

list of shoe companies

wouldn't it be better to either categorize the shoe companies or make a new page for it. right now it lengthens the article unnecessarily --Buridan 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already a category. I chopped the list and added a link to the category. Things look a bit messy though, I'll move a couple of images around to see if I can improve the look. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

It seems like there should be a section about criticism of shoes, both of the tendency to place fashion over function, and of the notion that we live in a society where shoes are necessary. I read a New Yorker article about an early World's Fair, and an orthopedic surgeon (I think) examined the feet of individuals on display as "savage" native Australians. He noted that the traditionally barefoot people had fewer posture, back, and foot problems than could be seen in any other similiarly-sized sample from anywhere else in the world. I think most people who accept criticism of shoes acknowledge that we live in an inevitably-shod society, because of inclimate weather and modern asphalt sidewalks and pavement, but again this gives some credence to the idea that more shoes should be designed for utility, not beauty. Also, the same article dealt extensively with a man who received a PhD from an industrial arts college in the former Soviet Union in shoe design. Shoes as a field of academic study would also be worth mentioning.

Thoughts? I'll try to find stuff to cite and add to the article, if no objections are raised.

Ihavenoheroes 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

Isn't the whole notion of placing shoe maker names both self serving and contradictory to the purpose of Wiki? When I've offered quality information from my website that is germane to the topic and has a noted authority on the subject I'm burned at the stake. My links are almost immediately removed by a self serving editor. Does this sound like a mixed message - to anyone? —This unsigned comment was added by 70.120.220.31 (talk • contribs) .

We've been through this the last time you tried to spam your site. See User talk:65.66.197.215 for the details. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe we last left this with your aggrogant refusal to discuss anything! Is there ANY possiblity you could strive to achieve a consensus? Please note my last note to you (you never responded):

Perhaps you've not read my earlier comment. We all concur that Wiki is not the correct forum for "blatant" advertising. Wiki does permit and promote the free exchange of relevant, accurate, and timely information - without regard to the linkage (.com, .net, ....). Your editorial license stops when the content and the linkages have been determined to be relevant, accurate, and reasonably appropriate.

I'm providing relevant, accurate, and timely information that finds its source in two universally recognized authorities. The fact that this information appears on a commercial website should not get your "shorts in a wad".

Please stay on task and focused! As a self-appointed Wiki editor you should be governing relevant, accurate, and timely information and avoiding "blantant" advertising.

I welcome your reply

The content of the links was determined to contain copyright violations, which is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

i know duh dummy

From the athletic shoes section...

"Emphasis tends to be more on function than style."

Umm... Have you looked at any athletic shoes produced in the past 50 years? All those stripes and ridges and shit are functional? Come now.

I love shoes and running shoes are ugly even though they're comfy. From the BOOP

Insufficient context?

A shoe is an item of footwear often worn on the foot or feet of a human. [...]

This is currently the first sentence of the article. Similar sentences (about socks, heels, etc.) follow.

But above the introductory paragraph there is a tag saying:

The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please help improve the introduction to meet Wikipedia'srpSIOJyio'rhere is no "issue" here. How many people worldwide are there who do not know what a shoe is? I'm going to remove that tag. Comments? <KF> 20:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• That and, it sounds completely and utterly silly. I mean, can it be rephrased in a way? 'Footwear' you wear on your feet? Wow. :S Claude.Xanadu 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is very odd to have a short list of animals who wear shoes----if a chimp wears "footwear on his feet," is that not a shoe? Also, the inclusion of dogs is arguable, but cats rarely (if ever) wear shoes, strange to include them in the list without a link to a cat shoe store or some such.

Photos requested

It would be very helpful to include photos for the types of shoes or accessories which don't have their own articles. -- Beland 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this true?

History - The earliest known shoe dates from about 7000 BCE and was found in California.

The same California as our california whose history does not date more than a couple of hundred years? Can someone verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.175.154.212 (talk • contribs) June 28, 2007.

Yes, I can verify it: the source ([1]) that's linked in the article does, indeed, say that. While the recorded history of California, and the name "California" itself, may only go back a few centuries, the place has been around (and occupied by humans) for much longer. Independent of what the shoe's maker or wearer called the place (we have no way of knowing what that was), or what cultural or political identity they owned to (we might never know that either), it seems that they had a shoe, around nine thousand years ago, somewhere in what we now call "California." -- Why Not A Duck 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Why Not A Duck,

  : I have read your cited source and am inclined to say that your statement can be

misleading to the reader. Please correct it to "protective footwear comparable to modern-day shoes"... or rephrase the para to include the early human acts to protect feet with the timeline. - Illiterate Reader.