Talk:Foot fetishism/Archive 3

Quentin Tarantino self description as obsessed with women's feet
In response to the question, "Mr. Tarantino, judging from your movies I have to ask: are you obsessed with women’s feet?" in a 2013 interview Tarantino said, "I’m not shying away from that. If you think about the directors that have been accused of being foot-crazy, it would have been Alfred Hitchcock, it would have been Buñuel, Samuel Fuller – it’s pretty good company. And it suggests they were pretty good filmmakers because they knew where to put their camera. But I think legs and ass get pretty much equal time in my movies."

I believe this is a clear self-description of being sexually interested in feet, which would be interesting and relevant to the readers of this article. There has been an enormous amount of speculation based on eroticized shots of feet in his movies, to the point of being mentioned by Brad Pitt in an acceptance speech this year, which may be notable enough in itself to mention as described in WP:BLPPUBLIC ("multiple major newspapers publish the allegations...The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources.") But being conservative with regard to a living person and leaving that out, at least this statement about himself would seem to be appropriate here. BrightVamp (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying and I have heard about this before, but I don't think we should state or imply that a specific person has a paraphilia. Flyer22 Frozen, any thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed per WP:BLP. And in that regard, I'm also concerned about other material in the "Example cases" section. And except for the first two sentences, that section also currently comes across as trivia. Per WP:MEDSECTIONS, I went ahead and renamed it "Society and culture." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Foot fetishism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foot fetishism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ryan": From Sexual intercourse:  From Orgasm:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Cara Delevingne
In [|this video] she says "I have a slight foot fetish." That is evidence from a reliable source (her) that she has a foot fetish. And it is not a violation of WP:BLP since it can be mentioned neutrally, verifiably, and in a secondary source (the Unilad citation), where it was presented as noteworthy. She would be one of the most famous people to openly discuss having a foot fetish, and so she is worthy of mentioning in the Society and Culture section.

BrightVamp (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone using the term "foot fetish" in such an obviously informal way - preceded by that all-important "slight" - warrants implying that a WP:BLP has a paraphilia. Flyer22 Frozen, since I know you watch this - any thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 02:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Her own words are sufficient to establish in Wikipedia that she is pansexual, that she is genderfluid, that she has depression, and that she has ADHD. When she says she has a foot fetish - as a Truth in a game of Two Truths and a Lie - is there a good reason to think she doesn't mean it? (it may appear informal, but it was said as part of a press tour, as most or all of the other statements were) BrightVamp (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We can ask about this at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This Foot Does Not Exist
An editor wanted to delete the section about the artificial foot generator as "Not relevant to the article, VERY probable self promotion." I'm not a foot fetishist and I don't know anything about the group that did it, but I find it weird and interesting that this site is generating artificial feet for fetishists to enjoy, and relevant to the topic. Will attempt a pass to make it less promotional-sounding. BrightVamp (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also relevant is the third party coverage, from Observer.com and Vice.com. BrightVamp (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude but I really, really don't want to talk about foot fetishism, so I'll keep my rationale brief.
 * A relatively inactive user had made several edits in quick succession, all of them about this group and their antics, all of them only being vaguely related to the articles they mentioned them in. They've engaged in viral advertising campaigns and I think these edits were likely either done by them or a fan of theirs.
 * This random, mostly obscure foot-generating neural network isn't noteworthy in the grand scheme of this article regardless of a few of hipster-ish outlets reporting on it. It's not at all known or relevant in general "society and culture" nor is it integral to understanding the topic. There are dozens of AI porn generators out. Compare it to some of the other things in this section like Ancient Greek poets and mainstream celebrities and it fails to hold the same cultural relevance.
 * If you disagree with this, please at least format the section a little better. It's a bit of a mess and all condensed into a single paragraph. 64.43.140.139 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your take on this. I took a reformatting pass, so hopefully that looks better. As for the noteworthyness, I'm not sure what I think - I personally found the feet generator surprising and interesting, so it doesn't bother me that it might well be self promotion, but you make a good point that other porn generators exist, and is there anything that is especially resonant about a foot porn generator? I read the artist's statement and though it had interesting things to say, there was nothing really about why the pics being artificial is relevant to the fetish. Would be good to get more opinions. BrightVamp (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for including notable living foot fetishists
This article used to include a long list of foot fetishists, which was removed in 2017 by Hillbillyholiday, who rightly noted that most of the people were there by rumor and/or without reliable sources. However, given that the fetish is extremely common, and increasingly less stigmatized, this article would be incomplete without notable people who have self-identified as having it, just as there are lists of celebrities who are pansexual, who are ambidextrous, or who have Crohn's disease.

For living people, the criteria need to be strict, and should be modelled on the criteria for noting someone as LGBT, that is, "only if they themselves publicly identify as such". Therefore I have removed Rex Ryan, who has a fair bit of evidence in that direction (he makes foot fetish videos with his wife, and did not deny it when asked), and added celebrities who pass an additionally high bar of explicitly using the words "foot fetish" to apply to themselves, all in interviews in reliable sources. I believe there is room for more people to be included, based on unambigous statements that don't use those exact words, but this should be a good place to start. Any new notable people added should be accompanied by high quality citations where they publicly self-identify. BrightVamp (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 23:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can see above that we discussed this previously. It's very dubious per WP:BLP, as that is Wikipedia saying that these people have a paraphilia (please read what that is), which is different than their own self-ID as pansexual or having a disease or whatever. Per our discussions above, I've removed the persons where they stated it only in an obviously weak or unserious sense (e.g. "a bit of" and the like). Even the rest I am not too keen on, but I'm upholding the existing standard, at least. Crossroads -talk- 03:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are intending by the emphasis on "wikipedia saying they have a **paraphilia**" - there is no medical condition called paraphilia, only paraphilic disorder, which is defined in terms of causing significant distress or dysfunction, which none of them indicate. Therefore there is no difference between saying they have a paraphilia or a sexual fetish, and all of them are quite happy to say that they have this fetish, which would seem to clear it as far as BLP - if they don't see it as shameful/libelous, why would Wikipedia?

But as extra caution we can add this criterion, that they not qualify it with "a bit" or "a slight", though nothing in these contexts suggests they are unserious about it. (Jack Black: "I find myself staring at feet. I like a heel. If she's wearing clogs, that does something for me. Flip-flops. Sandals. Bare feet are the best." Cara Delevingne: "I'm into feet." Margot Robbie in same interview: "I've had my foot in your mouth.") BrightVamp (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still agree with Crossroads. I don't see that we need to discuss this again. If discussing again, then bring in more opinions via the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

___

"

Youtube
Should there be a section about youtubers constantly mocking Foot Fetishists for no reason? I've seen this shit since 2012 and after 9 years, it's starting to get annoying... Gunther878787 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, unless you can provide reliable, secondary sources on it that establish that inclusion in this article is noteworthy. --Equivamp - talk 00:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous article image
I'm not sure if the image used in the opening of the article is very reflective of the subject. The woman appears to be forced to worship the other woman's feet, and forced to enjoy it at the dominant's request, especially considering other artwork by the artist depicts the woman in power abusing the younger one (who's kissing her foot in the page image). Potential candidate for removal? ChristopherRobin22 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hasan Swain. Peer reviewers: Reliablesourceconnoisseur, KernelG9900.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Section about living people who self-identify as having a foot fetish
The summary for the most recent edit says "it's half a paragraph about a single actor" and "WP:EXAMPLECRUFT" - the corresponding edits would be condensing the Idris Elba section, and converting it into a list (as recommended in WP:EXAMPLECRUFT), not deleting the section. But we can discuss it here. BrightVamp (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A list could work but I'm afraid of editors just using it as a dumping ground for every celebrity example. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with those concerns. This does seem like an excessive amount of detail dedicated to one person's sexual fetish, which really doesn't help readers understand the fetish (or reasons for it) in any greater detail. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Those are extremely valid concerns, and at times this article has been a dumping ground for every rumour and suggestion of a celebrity having a foot fetish. The current celebrities mentioned are strictly limited to people who have said, "I have a foot fetish" in so many words (or slight variations), in reliable sources. Whether this is converted to a list or kept in the current prose format, I would strongly support keeping this strict criterion, which is similar to what is used for inclusion of people in LGBT lists, and mentioning that criterion on the page itself. I think there is a lot of value in such a well-sourced list of contemporary people who self identify.


 * If this were a magazine article then a bit more emphasis on Idris Elba would be appropriate, since he's the biggest celebrity (at least to north americans) who has been open about it, and people might be surprised about how often and for how long he's spoken about it. But of course, this is an encyclopedia. BrightVamp (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)