Talk:Saddle shoe

Here's a reference for most of the info
http://books.google.ca/books?id=GlTgnEv4UXsC&pg=RA1-PA212&lpg=RA1-PA212&dq=%22saddle+shoes%22&source=web&ots=8m5yPfNxzl&sig=rK39a68gYO-qNON8w1WqBGvGx18&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result Natalie Anne Lanoville (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog source not reliable
I reverted content that was sourced from a blog]. We cannot make statements about the history of the shoe if all we have is an self-published source. Joja lozzo  22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture section
Hi User:24.7.14.87. You removed the section with the edit summary remove original research. I then spent 8 edits and 1/2 and hour sourcing the section so it would not be original research. You then removed the section again, this time with the edit summary pointing out that so-and-so wears saddle shoes in this-or-that work adds zilch to understanding of the work or of the shoes. Well, per WP:BRD, you need consensus to remove the section. Community, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I think the section helps visitors understand more about the shoes. It is relevant because people in popular culture popularize fashion items. They influence others into wearing them. This is not like adding a popular culture section to the Mercedes Benz article saying that Dustin Hoffman drove one. That would have no value. But examples of famous people introducing fashion items or bringing them back into style has relevance, especially with saddle shoes. They have been retro many times. Examples in popular culture show when and by whom they were helped to be popular again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To get from "shoes were worn" to "this demonstrates a fashion cycle" or any other cultural observation, you need a source in which that observation appears. Otherwise it's original research. And keeping examples as mere examples, without elaboration of their meaning, is indiscriminate trivia collection. A list of drive-by "I saw X" examples is not a sourced explanation of cultural meaning, nor will it be made one by increasing its length, nor by adding citations that verify only the example's existence. See White Russian (cocktail) for an example that I kept because I found a reliable source that not only verified the reference, but discussed what it might mean. Also see the conclusion of this RFC on the subject. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed all of the pop culture examples, and Anna objected, calling for "consensus." There is a prior, general consensus about the selection and citing of pop culture references, established through the RFC process. Some of the examples, with the citations that Anna added, met the requirements of that consensus; I kept them and rewrote them to narrative prose. Others, I removed. That's a compromise within the prior consensus. There is no "consensus" that random pop culture facts added to Wikipedia must be kept forever. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link. As far as I know, popular culture sections are still case-by-case and there is not a RfC that prohibits them across Wikipedia. But I could be wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've had my say. I think this article is better with the section. If the community disagrees with me, then it goes because the community knows best. So, I can accept it being out. You think otherwise. It is up to you now to convince the community that the section should be out. If you cannot do that, then the section stays in. It's a good system. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I did provide a link. (here again). The question of that RfC does not identify a specific article. I am not seeking the general removal of popular culture material and, if you would look at the edits, you'd see that I didn't remove all of it, only examples for which the citations didn't establish their significance. Aside fro that, I've observed that PC lists are a product of lazy editing and that prose serves to tie examples together into a coherent cultural observation. In reverting my removal of examples, you've also removed my prose that ties the remaining examples together. Please restore the prose; how you do that while addressing the deleted examples is up to you. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the link. Yes, it does say "significance" too. Although the items have refs, those sources simply mention that so-and-so wore the shoes. I think you are right. Please feel free to modify the article as you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not while I'm here. It's a good relevant section and fun for the readers to see Elvis, Peanuts, Gilmore Girls. Whatever some page somewhere says I'm applying IAR. Go be a boss somewhere else. Slight Smile 13:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it - the refs for these characters wearing saddle shoes are ify . I'm not going to go through Peanuts or Gilmore Girls clips etc to see if they are in saddle shoes and if I did that would be OR anyways wouldn't it. Still if someone wants to take a day and do this knock yourself out. I'm outa here. Slight Smile 13:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good for you that you're going through a trivia cleanup list. I'm sorry I have back track yet again - one of those days. Those refs do illustrate those characters wearing saddle shoes. Even though there is an issue of how significant those are, I say that RfC is on a case by case basis and you still need a consensus on this page to remove from this article. I believe those examples are fair and don't diminish the quality of the article. Feel free to start a fresh RfC. Slight Smile 15:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the background of the RfC; it grew out of edit conflicts across multiple articles, including one that I had been involved in. Its goal was to determine a sense of the community on pop culture standards in general. Your position that it applies only to particular articles is just wrong, and if you doubt that I suggest that you check with the opening or closing editors of the RfC. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't suppose you could fit Peanuts in there somewhere? Also wouldn't it look better with a heading like before. Slight Smile 21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Slightsmile. I think we both prefer the section in there. I do. One one hand, there is the RfC. On the other hand, it is case-by-case, and in this case, I think the article is better off with the section. I've explained why before, but in essence, when a famous character wears them, it shows who they fit, and that they wore them because it was the style then, and the fact that they wore them prompts others to wear them. It also shows what they go with.

So, Slightsmile, if you want the section in, please revert our IP friend. I will support that on the grounds that there was no consensus to remove the section.

IP: I see that you have been removing these sections in other articles. The removals I have inspected seem pretty good. However, in this article, the section does seem fitting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible links to improve this page
http://offenburger.com/index.php/whats-with-the-saddle-shoes/

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/style/it-s-black-and-white-and-not-an-ear-of-corn.html

https://historydaily.org/saddle-shoes-the-two-tone-classic-that-took-40-years-to-get-popular

https://vintagedancer.com/1950s/shop-saddle-shoes-black-white-two-toned-oxford-shoes/

https://vintagedancer.com/vintage/saddle-shoes-history/

http://www.keikari.com/english/a-history-of-saddle-shoes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.20.223.69 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)