Talk:Flip-flops

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Lead section[edit]

I have removed "Japanese sandals", "thongs" and a couple other references from the lead section. They can be represented in the body of the text. The most common name is "flip-flops" which is appropriately the title of the article. Let us please not clutter up the lead section. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) PS: The correct word is "thong sandals" not "thongs". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the kind of post that almost seems designed to inflame discussion here rather than help make a better article. There is no "correct" word. English doesn't work like that. Your Edit summary comment - Also a "thong" is not a flip-flop - is particularly unhelpful. I'm in Australia. The ONLY name this footwear has been known as in this country for all of my long lifetime is "thongs". I find it easy to accept that other names are used elsewhere. You should try to accept it too. I have no idea what "the most common name" is. I don't know how you can possibly know. I am going to again put the article back the way it has been for some time, and it should stay that way until a different consensus arises here, or until you can find sources for your claims. Since the latter cannot happen (see my comment about the name "thongs" above), it means you must wait for other editors to comment here, so please do not make any more changes now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
By your reasoning Hawaii chappal should also be included in the lead? There are independent and reliable sources available which will confirm that this term is widely referred to in the Indian subcontinent. The most WP:COMMONNAME is also the article name. It's very bad taste to revert war over something like this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "Hawaii chappal". The term you are thinking of derives from Hindi (India), and is spelled "Hawai chappal". On the island of Hawai'i, flip-flops are either known as the American term "flip-flops" or as "slippers". WTF? (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Sparkly business casual?[edit]

I'm no expert on flip-flops, but I'm not sure that being sparkly or not has anything to do with it? And the paragraph that mentions it goes on to say that's considered business casual, which I think must be some sort of joke... Wikinetman (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That must've been removed. The only statement that refers to "business casual" is an unsourced statement: "However, they are not considered flip flops if they have a strap around the heel or ankle, or they have more than a 1/2 inch heel. In any of these cases the shoe would be considered more along the lines of a business casual sandal." WTF? (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

article cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up the article and removed the cleanup tag from 2009. The information has been organized into four main sections:

  • etymology -- dealing with the terminology across the globe, as well as the origin of the term.
  • history -- covering their origin since ancient times.
  • design and custom -- covering the design and customs involved in wearing them.
  • health and medical implications -- covering the injuries that are common among wearers.

I removed the manufacturing section. Some of the information regarding what materials they're made of is in the design & custom section. Information about all of the various manufacturers is really not necessarily -- I think there are probably literally hundreds of makers of flip-flops across the world, and listing all of them is probably not appropriate. Many of the citations in the old section were just direct links to manufacturer websites anyway, which is a violation of WP:EL. WTF? (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

good faith re-addition of image to article[edit]

Here was deletion of image:Flip-Flops socks.jpg with cloudy statement. The image is compatibly to the topic of the article, since those socks were specifically designed to be worn with flip-flop sandals. --Neptuul (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The image was removed not for incompatibility with the topic itself. It was removed because there is already an image illustrating the wearing of toe socks with flip flops, and to reduce image crowding. It's not necessary to have an image of every single example of wearing socks with flip-flops in the article, and in this case, the image that was kept is more aesthetically appealing due to the angle that the picture was taken (a shot of someone else wearing them as opposed to a self-taken photo). WTF? (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hawai chappal[edit]

I have reverted this edit, which reintroduced the association of the Hindi term "Hawai chappal" with the island of Hawai'i. This is incorrect. While the reference itself does correctly attribute the term's usage in India, the editor is correct that the term "air sandal" is not found in the article. However, one can easily verify the information via Google Translate by typing in "air sandal" in English and translating to Hindi -- although the Hindi words are written in Sanskrit, an audio translation is available which will confirm that "Hawai chappal" translates to "air sandal". I think it's easy to get this confused, given the similar spellings of "Hawai" and "Hawai'i" using the roman alphabet. WTF? (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flip-flops/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this. Will have comments up in a day or three. Sasata (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; I get easily distracted...
  • "This style of footwear has been worn by many cultures throughout the world" do cultures wear flips flops, or rather the people in those cultures?
Fixed. WTF? (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "They may also lead to ankle sprains and broken bones." What is the subject of "they"? (the previous sentence was about injuries)
Corrected. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "strap that's not canvas" avoid contractions in formal writing
Fixed. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "(flip-flap had been used in echoic senses since the 1520s)" I don't really know what this means (also, too close to wording of the source)
  • what makes "Online Etymology Dictionary" a reliable source?
I don't think there's a question about this being a reliable source. The site incorporates a search engine with information about various english words, and they cite their sources and also provide information about the author. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, good enough for GA. Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • from what source is हवा चप्पल from? How can Google translate possibly qualify as a reliable source?
Translations actually really qualify more as common knowledge, since you're really providing the translation between two languages (no one owns the copyright over the words). With regard to the "Hawai chappal" <--> "air sandal" translation, a quick look at other online English-Hindi translators, as well as some actual translation books confirms the accuracy of Google Translate (although the spelling of "Hawai" may vary, due to translations between the Latin alphabet and Hindi Sanskrit). WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "similarly-designed" -ly words as compound adjectives shouldn't be hyphenated per wp:HYPHEN
Fixed. WTF? (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't see where in the two cited sources the Vietnamese, Polish, or Greek names are given
  • I'm pretty sure the Austrian (i.e., German) name should be capitalized, not sure about the others, but you might want to check capitalization rules for nouns in those languages
I have capitalized Havaianas and Jandals, since they are trademarked proper nouns. I cannot find evidence that "schlapfen" is a trademark or company name, so it is not capitalized. WTF? (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Schlapfen is a noun, and nouns are capitalized in German; I fixed it. Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Does about.com qualify as a RS?
I have never had a problem or anyone else question citations to about.com before. The article lists the author who wrote it and the date of publication. They actually seem to do their research on a wide variety of topics. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a different experience with the use of About.com. In this case though, I'll accept it, per the statement in WP:RS: "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • what makes http://www.pecheblu.com (a commercial site promoting the sale of flip-flops) a RS? They appear to have text very closely paraphrased from this article (or perhaps vice versa?)
  • the link to Havaianas redirects to the flip-flop article
Link removed. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • paraphrased a bit too closely:
article: "Beginning in 1962, the Brazilian company, Alpargatas, marketed a version of flip-flops known as Havaianas. These quickly become some of the most popular in the world: By 2010, more than 150 million pairs were produced every year."
source: "First created in 1962 by Brazilian company Alpargatas, Havaianas has become the most popular brand of flip-flops in the world, with more than 150 million pairs being produced every year."
article: "…came to dominate the casual footwear of young women from their teenage years to college and, often, they would be embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, beads, rhinestones, or other jewelry."
source: "…came to dominate young women's casual footwear … were heavily embellished with metallic finishes, charms, chains, wood or glass beads, rhinestones, buckles, and other jewelry pieces."
article: "Following the criticism, their footwear was eventually auctioned off on eBay to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, New York, who was befriended by the team. Nine pairs of flip-flops raised approximately $1,653."
source: "Criticism followed, and eventually the celebrity footwear was auctioned to raise money for a young cancer patient, Jaclyn Murphy of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., befriended by the team."
These statements have been reworded. WTF? (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • why is greenlivingtips.com a RS? www.bridgestonetrucktires.com?
Citation replaced. WTF? (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • the link in ref #11 (Florida Today) isn't working
Replaced citation. WTF? (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese commonly wear tabi with their zōri sandals, which is a traditional sock with a single slot for the thong." source?
Citation added. WTF? (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In the "Health and medical implication" section, I'd like to see more WP:MEDRS-compliant sources used for claims about increased susceptibility to injury, rather than the news sources that are currently used
  • References:
page # for refs 4 and 8
publication year for ref #7? (Kendzior)
For ref 4, a page number is not printed on the page, but a link to the document is google books takes you directly to the page. WTF? (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Year added to reference #7. WTF? (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If the various monetary amounts given in the article are in US dollars, that should be indicated
Where the dollar sign is used, it is linked to United States Dollar; the british pound is used in the article, too, and that is linked to Pound Sterling. WTF? (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Some suggestions for better medical sources:
Title: Footwear and orthopaedics.
Author(s): Kurup, H V; Clark, C I M; Dega, R K
Source: Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Pages: 79-83 Published: 2012-Jun
  • This is a review article (a good WP:secondary source) that spends a paragraph discussing flip-flops; some of the material in the Health section could be sourced to this (instead of news sources):

    "Flip-flops also are claimed to simulate barefoot walking and increase calf, leg and gluteal muscle activity. Manufacturers of the popular model Fitflop claim them to be flip-flops with a built-in-gym. The different flip-flops available on the market have been reviewed by American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA), which recommends only a few. According to APMA, the lack of support in a flip-flop can leave the wearer susceptible to sprained ankles and ligament injuries, and the limited protection offered to feet can mean a higher chance of cuts, scrapes, and stubbed toes. Penetrating injuries have previously been reported in rubber-soled shoes and flip-flops and they are therefore not recommended in diabetics, due to the lack of protection from injuries [48] and [49]. In general flip-flops appear to be suitable for normal feet but not for patients with foot pathology (Fig. 4).

note: their citation #48 is PubMed, while #49 is PubMed
Also, both this article and another source (PubMed) mention the flip-flops made by Fitflops, and seem to endorse them (I'm using "endorse" loosely, of course), e.g., the latter source says: "If you’re going to wear flip-flops, you might try the ones made by Fitflops or Chaco. They’ve been endorsed by the American Podiatric Medical Association because they have a thicker sole, good arch support, and a deep heel cup that holds the foot and helps with shock absorption." This is probably worth a mention in the article.
  • Your newly added source Shroyer (2009) is an improvement over what was there previously, but it appears like this is his doctoral dissertation; it's better to cite the relevant peer-reviewed publication resulting from this disseration:
Title: Comparative Analysis of Human Gait While Wearing Thong-Style Flip-flops versus Sneakers
Author(s): Shroyer, Justin F.; Weimar, Wendi H.
Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 100 Issue: 4 Pages: 251–257 Published: JUL-AUG 2010; PubMed
Title: Computerized analysis of plantar pressure variation in flip-flops, athletic shoes, and bare feet
Author(s): Carl, Tanya J.; Barrett, Stephen L.
Source: Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Volume: 98 Issue: 5 Pages: 374–378 Published: SEP-OCT 2008; PubMed
From the abstract: "Results: Statistically significant results were obtained for nine of the 18 comparisons. In each of these comparisons, flip-flops always demonstrated higher peak plantar pressures than athletic shoes but lower pressures than bare feet. Conclusion: Although these data demonstrate that flip-flops have a minor protective role as a shock absorber during the gait cycle compared with pressures measured while barefoot, compared with athletic shoes, they increase peak plantar pressures, placing the foot at greater risk for pathologic abnormalities."

Another possibility:

Title: Effects of Common Footwear on Joint Loading in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Author(s): Shakoor, Najia; Sengupta, Mondira; Foucher, Kharma C.; et al.
Source: Arthritis Care & Research Volume: 62 Issue: 7 Pages: 917–923 doi:10.1002/acr.20165 Published: JUL 2010

Let me know if you'd like to have these articles sent to you; I can access many through my University account (and there's always WP:RX for harder-to-find ones). Sasata (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • It's been over a month since the most recent post to this review, and almost that long since the nominator edited the article. What is the status, please? If there are still significant problems, perhaps the review needs to be concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm closing this review; the nominator appears to have lost interest, and there's still problems with poor-quality sources in the "Health and medical implications" section. Sasata (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Jandals[edit]

A user keeps trying to reinsert the following into the etymology section of the article:

There is some controversy in New Zealand regarding the invention of the name "jandals". The name was trademarked October 4 1957 by Morris Yock and eventually passed to Skellerup. However it is also claimed that the name was first thought of by John Cowie, Mr Yock's friend, who started manufacturing a plastic version of the Japanese wooden sandals in the late 1940s in Hong Kong.[7]

While it's of minor and trivial interest, probably moreso in New Zealand, it doesn't really pertain to the overall global use of the word, nor does it disprove the use of the term "jandals". What it is is essentially some trivial infighting between two individuals in a trademark dispute over who owns the term. The article is really only concerned with which terms are used, not who owns the trademark on which terms. A minor trademark dispute does not meet the threshold for inclusion in a general article about the subject. WTF? (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the part of this which is of greater interest is the date the term was trademarked in comparison to the dates (not yet in the article) when the other more well-known terms began being used in English.
According to Etymonline (which doesn't have an entry for "jandal") the term "thong" for this footwear has been in use since 1965 and the term "flip-flop" / "flip flop" has been in use since 1972. According to Wiktionary "thong" was in use in United States, especially in certain areas and especially up to the 1980s, after which "thong" came to mean a certain type of G-string.
The trademark dispute in New Zealand involves a specific and verifiable date which proves that "jandal" pre dates "thong" and "flip flop" by decades. This is surprising and interesting. I would not be surprised if the footwear was known by various circumlocutions like "Japanese sandal" before these three terms settled into fixed usage.
I think this information, when properly sourced from citable primary sources would be of great interest to the article. I've often witnessed people argue over which term for this footwear is "correct" so the full story would be good for settling those debates. — Hippietrail (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

THE Aussie National Attire[edit]

I'm a little suprised that there's not a subsection under customs noting that the thong is part of the australian national attire - even the Australian Government thinks so.[1]

It forms part of the triptych of shorts; singlet and thongs. Throw in a ute and a stubbie and you're done.

Thoglette (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The linked article does NOT say that thongs are official "national attire", so adding it to the article as such would be grossly inaccurate and horribly inappropriate. It merely says that thongs are popularly worn. WTF? (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Other types of flip-flops[edit]

This article only talks about one type of flip-flop. In addition to the thong flip-flops with the strap between the toes, there is also another type of flip-flop that has no strap between the toes. Instead, it has a horizontal strap that goes over the top of the foot.

This is what it looks like: http://media.photobucket.com/image/adidas%20duramo%20slide%20g15890/aa-sports/Shop%20Pics/adidasduramoslideG15890-3.png?o=2

SuperHero2111 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "media.photobucket.com" is NOT a valid source for adding to the article. Please see WP:RS regarding what is. WTF? (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't going to add that picture to the article as a source. The only reason why I added the link to that picture is to show what the flip-flops that I am talking about look like. I didn't mean to cite that link, or anything. I just included that link, so that people could see and realize what I was talking about. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Health and medical implications[edit]

The section about possible health risks is terribly biased and wrong. Our feet don't need any support; on the contrary, going barefoot or wearing minimalist footwear (such as flip-flops) is actually much healthier for the feet than wearing supportive shoes. And people with flat feet do not need support. Flat feet are either caused by weakness due to wearing shoes, or genetics. If they're caused by the former, then starting to go barefoot will strengthen your feet and might raise your arches. If it's the latter, then there's nothing wrong with your feet. There are actually many habitually-barefoot people with flat feet who have perfectly healthy feet and no foot problems. This whole 'support' paradigm is just a load of rubbish, and I think that it should be removed from here. SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but the article has sources supporting the negative perspective. They do seem a bit tabloid though. I guess the best approach is to find some decent sources supporting your point of view, and at least rewrite that section of the article to say something like "There are conflicting views on whether flip-flops are good for the feet. Some sources suggest they can be dangerous.... However, others point out that...." HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)