Talk:Vibram FiveFingers

Running Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running 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.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge tag all running related articles with {{WikiProject Running}} adding assessment and importance parameters when missing find references for articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Running/Unreferenced BLPs adopt an article and promote it to GA

This article seems to be written like an advertisement[edit]

Can someone please try to "clean it up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speyeker (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the template would help?

69.136.72.16 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this entry needs to be flagged as reading like an advertisement. However, the sentence stating that FiveFingers was one of Time Magazine's inventions of the Year in 2007 is simply wrong. They are nowhere to be found in the list of inventions: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1677329,00.html (However, this inaccurate statement appears in over a 400 places on the Web.)--MichaelRNelson (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)MichaelRNelson[reply]

It's been rewritten enough so it doesn't need the template. I searched time.com and didn't find anything either, so I've removed the reference and claim. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry . . . The shoes WERE listed as a Best Invention of 2007.

http://www.trailspace.com/articles/2007/11/12/vibram-fivefingers-named-a-best-invention-of-2007-by-time-magazine.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.207 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fan site[edit]

Wondering why the external link to the FiveFingers fan site got killed -- http://birthdayshoes.com -- Disclosure: I created birthdayshoes. That said, it is by far the most exhaustive resource about fivefingers on the Internet with hundreds of user-posts, hundreds of forum posts and forum members, revivews, photos, product news, etc. It's bizarre that the external link to birthdayshoes was removed but external links to four arbitrarily picked reviews (there are hundreds of reviews out there) are left.

Meanwhile, I'd be happy to extend some of the information on this write-up. For example, it'd be informative to include mention of the ongoing counterfeit fivefingers problem (see: http://birthdayshoes.com/these-are-not-vibram-five-fingers-spotting-fakes-counterfeits-knock-offs-and-other-pirated-black-market-five-toed-shoes )

Justinowings (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ELNO, which is clear about what sites are not acceptable. Secondly, in publishing information from your own website to Wikipedia you would be going against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy (WP:COI) --Biker Biker (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displayed models[edit]

3 pictures of KSOs are more than enough. Can someone replace a couple of those by some pics of other models? 80.174.254.231 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the reason these are there is because it's the only model for which we can locate free photos. Do you own a pair of another style? Will you put them on and have someone photograph them and then upload them to Commons under a free license? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are, a picture of a pair of FiveFingers Sprint uploaded to Commons under free license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vibram_FiveFingers_Sprint_Coconut_Goblin_Blue.JPG I own a pair of VFFs KSO Trek made of leather and soles with off-road-specific tread, but don't have any picture of them. Right now I don't have enough light to take a decent photo. 80.174.254.231 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And added to the article. You rock! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a pair of Vibram FiveFingers KSO Trek uploaded to Commons under free license: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vibram_FiveFingers_KSO_Trek_Brown.JPG 81.60.184.222 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I also got a photo of a pink pair today. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, a women's design will contribute to a more balanced representation of the product. Are that pink pair women's Bikilas? 81.60.184.222 (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I will post the photo to Commons, and I suppose we can all find out together. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

history of toe shoes, reasons for toe shoes[edit]

Seems like this would be a relevant addition to the article -- some mentions of why toe shoes make sense ( http://birthdayshoes.com/why-toe-shoes ) or surrounding the history of VFFs as a brand http://birthdayshoes.com/what-are-they —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.229.65 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former seems not to be a good fit about an article about a specific brand name. The latter might be (and why do I want to say it's already in there? I should go look). For the former, that would be a good fit if we ever write an article about the concept more generally, rather than about a particular brand name. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimilist shoes section[edit]

Why is there a section on minimalist shoes in this article. That is a separate topic. This article should just talk about the Vibram 5 fingers, and not the details of a study. If there are no objections, I will remove that section. These shoes are notable, and this is a good article, even without the section on minimalist shoes. Sancho 17:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - this is a bit too general for an article about a specific product. However, rather than removing outright, since the section is really good, let's see if we can't find a better article for it to go in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the section, the problem is that it's a wee bit too short. If it had more to it, then it would be easier to do something with it... SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll also try to think of a better home article for this material. Sancho 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original contributor of that material actually wasn't sure if it should go in this article, or in the more general article on Barefoot running. See Talk:Barefoot_running#Vibram_FiveFingers. Sancho 20:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that we'd do best with a separate article called Minimalist shoes, but we need a little bit more material to do that. Failing that for now, do you really think that Barefoot running is a close enough match? I would think that a "shoes" article would be a better fit than a "sports" article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's more "shoe" than "running". I'll leave this for now, but soon, I'll try to dig up some more material to create a minimalist shoes article, if you don't do it in the meantime. Sancho 03:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the editing process the point of this section appears to have been lost. It currently describes the methods of studies but there are no results/conclusions. danno 01:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year later, this section borders on coatracking. I removed this addition which appears to have original research problems. Let's find a proper place for this and follow WP:MEDRS closer. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were similar edits to barefoot running yesterday, which may also have problems with integrity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information[edit]

Apparently my attempt to help fill out this topic didn't quite fit the standards. Nonetheless, I'd like to help make this a more comprehensive topic. I have a fair amount of personal first-hand knowledge of this product. I noticed that a site that I could possibly use for reference has already been removed once prior (despite being a rather comprehensive and informative site). Is there some way to legitimately add detail without having to rely upon citing some collection of general freelance reporter articles that often get their technical details wrong from the beginning? Suggestions? Radon360 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is: "The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." See WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOR. Your personal knowledge on the topic is irrelevant because you are writing anonymously or under pseudonym. Even if you were an expert on the topic, we have no means to verify it and even if we did, experts have to have their assertions peer reviewed too. If your subject (or particular detail you wish to add) has no acceptable third party source it probably does not meet the notability guidelines ( See WP:NOTABILITY). Without good sources, youy will likely face further removals of your additions. You can dispute that removal via WP:RSN (essentially, to have more people review your sources until they reach consensus, either with your or against you). Sorry, it is just how Wikipedia works. --Melmann^(talk) 05:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Wikipedia is not a catalog. No need to list every different shoe style they've ever made. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb, a catalog? do you mean something like this "Comparison of Android devices", or this other page "Canon EOS", or perhaps this other "Ford Focus". And how about this one "List of Ferrari road cars", or more closely related, this page "Nike Air Max" and these other two, this one "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nike_brands" and this other "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adidas_brands"? You will have to take a couple of days off to remove all the pages like those. 80.174.254.239 (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion needed[edit]

I put the referenced sentence "The company settled a law suit alleging false health claims and set aside $3.75 million to pay refunds of up to $94 to anyone who had purchased the product since March 21, 2009." in the lede and was reverted. This is covered in the body and I believe that it is very necessary for this article. Otherwise the article still very much reads as promotion or advertising. There are very few secondary sources cited in the article, and this is one of them (from the Washington Post).

There are still some non-vague health claims in the article and these should be removed mostly as original research, where our editor's "connected the dots" in 2 articles that didn't mention Fivefingers, or mentioned the product only once as a general example of a type of product.

The revert edit summary stated "Rv repetition and undue prominence in lede of matter covered better in body of article already." These matters are best dealt with by consensus of our editors. I'll put the sentence back in for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

These don't seem like they would offer much more protection against toe-stubbing than going barefoot would! Also, isn't there any more information available on what these supposed health claims were against the company? I hate when an article just says that "the compnay was alleged to have engaged in some wrongdoing/malpractice", and doesn't give any details as to what this might be. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vibram FiveFingers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]