Talk:Foot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bad redirect

"Instep" redirects here, but is never mentioned in the article. I have no idea what instep is, so I can't fix it. Please do. 79.138.205.160 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

the article has been attacked by vandalism 74.129.104.107 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cultures where shoes are rarely removed"

Hey question, what's the bit about it being rare in the US to remove your shoes upon entering a house? I've lived in the US all my life, in New Jersey, Illinois, and Texas, and I can assure anyone who asks that it is indeed customary here to remove your shoes upon entering a house. --143.111.99.91 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As a lifelong resident of UK and occasional visitor to the New England region of USA I have never been asked or expected to remove shoes upon entering any building I do not expect my visitors to do so - if I did I would feel obliged to keep a stock of slippers/moccasins for their use - I do not do so. 82.152.253.18 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Foot covering" section, it originally stated that the sight of bare feet might be considered offensive in cultures where shoes are rarely removed. This was immediately followed by Thailand and Arab countries as examples. I deleted the "where shoes are rarely removed" part because it would be ironic for the reader to realise that Thailand and Arabia are, in fact, places where people go barefoot a lot, both for religious reasons and lack of money. The example used still holds true: Is really is offensive to show the soles of one's feet in these cultures, even though being barefoot itself is common. --219.77.137.199 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My edit was reversed. I have made the change again. --219.77.137.199 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This article still says that it is "rare in most parts of the country" to remove one's shoes in the US. Even if it is not as common as Europe or Australia, I do not believe taking one's shoes off when entering a house is rare, especially among children. I have grown up in the US and frequently remove my shoes when entering houses, never wear my shoes in the house, and have seen large piles of shoes at the doorway in many homes. I live in Western Illinois, which I am sure is not a cultural enclave of taking off one's shoes. More carefuly wording is needed. 75.23.114.124 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed from some regions in the US to most of the US. If somebody can name a region in the US where people generally dont remove their shoes, then please add it. Otherwise I am changing it to most of the US. I have never heard of it being common to wear shoes in the house. I have visited friends in many areas, and I have never heard of leaving your shoes on. I live in NY, have visited Colorado, Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Hawaii, Maine, and many more places. So, if somebody can tell me whether in people in the central part of the US wear shoe in their houses, that would be great. PhorkPhace 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Everything

I stuck a reference to "Theory of Everything" into the "see also" section and it was almost immediately deleted. My motivation for putting it there is that "TOE" is almost universally used whenever the "Theory of Everything" is discussed in any written format, and because when I went to see whether the Theory of Everything was on the server, the first thing I searched for was "toe." TOE or ToE is very common in popular science articles written in the last several years. If you imagine someone picking up a magazine or newspaper article that mentioned the TOE or the GUT but did not have ready access to the first paragraph, that person would likely have no idea of what the construction/acronym meant. In such a case, the Wikipedia is a good first place to look... but only if the TOE entry was present. I'm gonna put it back in. If you're the moderator who zapped my entry and who won't accept unencrypted mail, please leave it alone. -- ken 21NOV2003

i think the best thing would be to solve the redirect from toe to foot as a disambiguation .. have done it -- Ebricca 13:49, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Scope

Should the foot article really restrict itself to the human body, or should it talk about the foot as an appendage common to many different animals? Note that other biological forms of foot are not addressed on the disambiguation page. --Michael Snow 02:45, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It should cover all animals. It is clear that this page needs some expert attention. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I have to wonder, do we really need three pictures of human feet? It's not like any of us here can't take a look at our own. AndyCapp 04:15, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

hey! I worked hard to provide that picture with just the bones. And it hurt like hell getting all that flesh off. →Raul654 04:19, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

And no offense to whoever's feet those are, but couldn't we get someone with better looking feet? AndyCapp 05:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I inserted a pic of nice healthy feet that also demonstrates how the footprint shold be! Should we remove the old ugly ones??--Lorenz kerscher 15:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember reading that showing the bottom of one's foot is very considered very offensive among Thais and Arabs. The siblings picture, cute as it is, does seem like an unnecessary offense. Pekinensis 17:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct, showing the soles of ones' foot is offensive in Arabic countries. However, it's no more offensive than The finger, and so could remain. Although a section about how this is offensive to Thais and Arabs wouldn't go admiss on the article. Proto t c 10:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We need some pictures of some foot model's feet. The pictures on here are really... eh, not "cute". Illuminus

Wha? This isnt a foot fetish site or something, it doesnt matter if they look good or "cute" or whatever. The pictures are just to show the laterial and medial sides of the foot with a picture to show what you mean (etc).

Those feet look like they smell. I have to agree though, better feet are in order. Not that I'm looking for attractive feet to view on wikipedia, but I'd rather have them than feet that make me cringe. I think any example of the anatomy should be of a healthy specimen. Did you see the human legs article?--Hellogoodsir 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with those pictures from old anatomy books, as the first image in this article and the one in Human leg. Especially the feet depicted in those are always deformed, because they are from a time when people used narrow, pointed shoes and didn't know or care about the adverse aesthetic and health effects. The first picture in this article would be OK to illustrate Hallux valgus. In this article it seems to suggest this is what a foot should look like. Aren't there any free anatomical images of healthy feet, as in feet of barefoot walkers?

As for the smelling part, that's a strange association. Be assured that it's impossible to tell from the aspect of bare feet how much they smell. Mostly they won't smell at all, except if they come "fresh" out of some sock or shoe. It's also in the nose of the beholder. Foot fetishism is the most widespread fetishism, and it often involves smell.--87.162.16.224 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arches

Can someone knowledgeable contribute information about arches, flatfootedness, and corresponding footwear?--StAkAr Karnak 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quibbles

Re LOCOMOTION. The article states that the foot is a biological structure found in many animals that is used for locomotion. You might as well say that the foot is a biological structure used to shoot yourself into.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if this is the best of questions, but I was told when every single human born, has one foot bigger than the other. Is this true, and where can I find the proof other than someone just saying that yes, it's true.e-mail me at bigpapasalas@hotmail.com I would be very thankfull. today is Aug 24 2006.

Re BIGFOOT. Of course it's true, papasalas. How could it be otherwise? Even if we were machine-made, our feet would never have exactly the same size. By the way, some say that the bigger one is the one people put in their mouth...--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CAzo4iYu1R8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CAzo4iYu1R8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I searched 'Instep' in order to try to find out which part of the foot that is. (English is not my first language) Obviously, after reading the article, I still don't know what the instep is. Could someone post an image with corresponding numbers or arrows that will show which part is which? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeadlyHobo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

It appears that the first link in the external links section is a dead link.Darrellpenta 16:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2/29/08: I don't see the need for a reference to a "foot job" under the Culture section of this article. Do children who are looking up the foot on wikipedia really need to know about "foot jobs"? It seems vulgar and inappropriate for an anatomy description. When I looked up hand in the World Encyclopedia as a kid, I didn't find "hand job". I propose that this reference be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.71.189 (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. Kids can learn about sex on other parts of the internet, including other parts of wikipedia. Also I object to including pictures of the soles of feet right next to an article that says pointing the soles of your feet at others is a taboo in some cultures. This page isnt being regulated nearly as hardcore as a stupid page like a Star Trek/ Star Wars page. Someone knowledgeable should completely redo this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.114 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and tidying up

This is one of those articles on a generic anatomical feature which refers overmuch to human anatomy. None of the anatomical articles I looked at were very good at handling this, but at least some recognized a division between human and non-human anatomy (see, for instance, Head), so I followed that course for the sake of uniformity. The article may ultimately need to be split. Larry Dunn 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The info box in an article usually goes at the top, but in this case, the info box seems to be ideal for inclusion at the top of the section on the Human Foot, as that has the bones and so on, illustrated in the info box. Any thoughts on this? I thought I'd ask before moving it. Larry Dunn 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved as described above. It appears to me to work better where it is now -- so that the descriptive text of the parts of the human foot match up with the infobox illustration. Larry Dunn 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks kinda weird to me, so I left a message thus to see if there's any policy or guidelines. WLU 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is long dead, but I got a reply at talk:infoboxes, and it looks like it's OK, so I'm fine with the placement. I do think a picture could go in the top right though. WLU (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)