Talk:Buffalo (footwear)/Archives/2013

Fetish

Hello, All.

In January 2006, someone added to this stub the fact that there is a sexual fetish associated with this footwear.

In early August 2006, someone added a "verify source" tag to the line about the fetish.

I soon added a longish footnote that should have done away with any doubt about the fetish's existence.

In the last two days, one editor has twice removed the entire bit about the sexual aspect, as has another editor. I have restored it once; another editor restored it once. Also, I have now inserted a new version.

Before inserting that new version, I contemplated the issue for a good while. I very much grasp that just about anything in the universe could become an object of sexual fetish for one human being or another, and I don't think Wikipedia should automatically have that fact explicated for everthing under the sun (iPods, window frames, grapes, pancreases, hubcaps, pine trees, whatever).

But

(1) Blue jeans, for example, have continued to be popular among millions and millions of people for decades and decades, generally popular, regardless of their sexual aspects—but the remaining popularity of several 'models' of this kind of shoe is now mostly among those who fetishise it.

(2) We do mention these sexual views at such related articles as "Sock", "Stocking", "Foot", "High-heeled shoe", "Sock fetishism", "Ballet boot", &c. And all but those last two are things that are widely popular in general, regardless of sexuality. If they already have mentions of fetishism when they're quite popular everyday objects, it seems to me to support the idea of mentioning fetishism in something that, nowadays, has most of its remaining popularity specifically among fetishists.

(3) I have followed the German-language Wikipedia article of this footwear, and seen the brief German discussion of whether to include the fetish aspect. While we should consider the content of the German-language version of this article, we should not blindly mimic it.

What do you think?

President Lethe 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're totally correct. The well-referenced data you have provided should clearly remain in the article, unless compelling reasons are put forward for its removal. And :de not having it is not compelling. --Guinnog 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this before seeing the post in the next section.)

It may be helpful if I explain a few points about my recent edits:

1. It is common, when we use a noun and a past participle together as an attributive, to use the noun—not an adjective based on the noun. If something is electrically powered (powered by electricity), we might call it "electricity-powered". If something is activated by light, we call it "light-activated". If something is based in Germany, it's "Germany-based". I know that "German-based" is also used; but my preference is for the consistency of using the noun.

2. fetish vs. object of fetish. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines fetish first as "an inanimate object worshipped for its supposed magical powers", second as "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is focused abnormally on an object, part of the body, or activity", and third as "a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment". Dictionary.com, citing The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006), defines fetish first as "an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency", second as "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades", and third as "any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation"; citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), it defines fetish first as "An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices", second as "An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence", third as "Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification", and fourth as "An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation". This supports the shorter wording that the shoes themselves are a fetish; yes, we can also say that they are an object of fetish(ism)—but we can, in accordance with definitions in reputable dictionaries of Standard English, also call the shoes themselves a fetish, and thus be more concise.

3. Fetishism is all about human definition. It is not about external realities. Once one person fetishizes an object, that object is a fetish. Not everyone may see it as a fetish—but it is a fetish, because it is "Something [* * *] that arouses sexual desire". When we say that something is a sexual fetish, we don't mean that every human being who has ever existed has considered the thing a fetish; we are simply saying that it is a fetish, without specifying the size of the population that has fetishized it. When we say that a place on the Earth is a tourist destination, we don't mean that every tourist makes it a destination for his or her own personal tourism—but the fact remains that it is a destination of some tourists, and we don't bother inserting "some".

(4. Tom88, in the edit for which your summary said "PROPER ENGLISH", you used the present participle (considering) where the past participle (considered) is standard.)

President Lethe 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Fetish

Hi there,

I am the editor who believes the reference/links to the sexual fetish should be removed on this page. My arguments are as follows:

1) ANYTHING can be a sexual fetish. Things such as socks, etc. are general. This is a specific product by a specific company we're talking about here. If you add the fetish reference here, you might as well begin adding it to hundreds of other products' articles (ex. shoes by Nike, jeans by Levis, leather products by D&G, etc.) that also have tons of fetish sites for them.

2) The GERMAN version of this article has also chosen to remove the fetish reference. The arguments discussed in the German version are very convincing. We shouldn't mimic their version entirely, but the content should be similar between the versions. Buffalo Boots are essentially from Germany, so it would be disrespectful to include this irrational reference in the English version, while the German version doesn't. It's also ironic how one editor says we shouldn't mimic the German version, but includes links to German sites anyway.

3) The article should be expanded (significantly) before any mention of any sort of fetish is included. The company's history, their various styles, the popularity of their platform shoes, and so on, should be discussed in detail in the article (i.e. it shouldn't merely be a "stub") BEFORE anything about a fetish is mentioned. If 1/3 of the article is essentially about a fetish, people will read it and gain a SUBJECTIVE OPINION that these shoes are primarily a sexual fetish, which of course they aren't.

4) If a fetish reference were to be added much later on, after the article is expanded significantly, it should clearly state that the shoes are considered a fetish BY SOME. Not everyone who wears them or likes them sees them as a fetish.

5) The shoes that could be considered a sexual fetish by some, may have not necessarily lost their widespread popularity. Have they lost their widespread popularity? You need evidence to justify that they have lost their widespread popularity. I guarantee you, I've been to places today where Buffalo shoes (even older styles) are still very popular.

Thank you, Tom 88

NOTE TO PRESLETHE: I knew about the "considered" not "considering" thing. Just a typo. I was about to change it, but the old version of the article was restored.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom88 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 August 2006.

Tom88, please, sign your posts in this way on Talk pages.

1. Yesterday, above, I addressed the matter of "ANYTHING can be a fetish". Nike shoes continue to be popular in general, as do Levi's jeans. Buffalo shoes' remaining popularity is largely among those who fetishize them. Also, I don't object to mentioning Nike and Levi's fetishes at those articles, if the information is properly cited.

2. We don't have to blindly mimic the German version of this article. You say "The arguments discussed in the German version are very convincing." I disagree. The discussion of the fetish includes (1) one long post about the fetish, from December 2005, not arguing for or against inclusion of the fetish information, but simply providing details of it and (2) two posts, from July 2006, by two editors, in which the first post reads

Der europäische Schuhfetischist hat nur sehr bestimmte Schuhtypen, die ihn interessieren. Dazu zählen vor allem Gummistiefel oder Highheels. Wie entsprechend stark frequentierte Foren im Web zeigen, aber auch Buffalo-Schuhe (das fand inzwischen sogar Niederschlag in der Schuhliteratur, wie ich kürlich bemerkte). Insofern ist dieser Umstand durchaus erwähnenswert und nicht einfach mit der Bemerkung "Alles kann zum Fetisch werden" abzutun. Aus diesem Grund habe ich den betreffenden, übrigens nicht von mir stammenden, Satz im Artikel belassen und wehre mich gegen dessen Löschung durch einen User, der hier nur mit einer IP-Adresse und der o. g. "Argumentation" auftaucht. --Helge Sternke 11:53, 12. Jul 2006 (CEST)

(this describes common European shoe-fetishist preferences and mentions that Buffalos are such a fetish, and then rejects the argument (of one anonymous advocate of deleting the fetish line) that, because "Everything can become a fetish", the fetish information should be removed from the article), and in which the only other post is

das klingt jedenfalls schon deutlich nachvollziehbarer als die aussage "einige menschen sind buffalo-schuh-fetischisten". so wie der satz drinsteht ist er imho tatsächlich nahezu wertlos. findest du vielleicht noch eine gute quelle dazu? dann könnte man das entsprechend formuliert durchaus drinlassen. -- ∂ 03:44, 13. Jul 2006 (CEST)

(which does not reject inclusion of the fetish info, but advocates a more detailed statement about it).

3. Where does Wikipedia policy say that, before relevant information about one aspect of a topic is added to the article on that topic, other aspects of the topic must first be written about in more detail?

4. At about the same time as that at which you were making your post, I was, above, addressing the "some" issue.

(About "considered"/"considering": it's unlike me to draw attention to such an issue (I usually simply make the appropriate change and move along); but it seemed a little funny in light of your "PROPER ENGLISH" bit. Sorry if the humor didn't come across.)

President Lethe 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom88, I've just seen your fifth point, about the alleged decline in certain Buffalo shoes' general popularity. We could cite fashion-related message boards of various countries, which include postings about the decline in popularity. We could cite the fact that the majority of photos at "streetshot" websites about these styles of Buffalos were taken some years ago and the rate at which new photos are added is much reduced. We could ask Buffalo for sales statistics about the various models over the last ten years or so and note the declines in models before their production ended as well as models that are still produced but in smaller quantities. Citing the fashion message boards as gauges of popularity seems to me not much worse than citing the fetish websites as evidence of the fetish. I was going to say we could get someone to find out how much space Buffalos are allotted in various shoes stores and maybe clothing catalogues in 2006, compared to other years—but the research in stores would probably violate NOR. — President Lethe 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Aside from the fact that ANYTHING can be a fetish, there are many products that have articles on Wikipedia that can be a fetish for some people. It is UNFAIR for Buffalo shoes to be labelled as being a fetish, if there are other products (ex. Go-Go boots) that have a stronger presence in sexual fetishism, but have no mention of it on their articles.

2) I personally believe that adding a few forums and sites is NOT good evidence. Provide a competent external article that justifies that certain Buffalo shoes have a sexual fetish.

3) There is no need for you, President Lethe, to translate those German articles. I am fluent in German and have lived in Germany for over a decade. I, more than anyone, would know what those German users are talking about and how this article should be shaped. They excluded the fetish reference on the German version for exactly the reason that the references were weak and the article was still too elementary.

4) I'm not talking about Wikipedia policy. I'm talking about writing a good, fair article that doesn't put a popular brand in a bad light. If you, President Lethe, devote 1/3 of the article to saying how Buffalo shoes are a sexual fetish, it distorts the reality of the company and its shoes.

5) President Lethe's argument on the "some" issue is, similarily, unconvincing. It is only a sexual fetish for SOME people. Not for everyone. Excluding the word "some" makes it sound as if everyone has a fetish for Buffalo shoes, which is obviously incorrect. I do, however, understand President Lethe's argument. My only concern is for others: they visit Wikipedia, they are not familiar with Buffalo shoes, they read the article, and they come to believe that Buffalo shoes are primarily a sexual fetish.

It's really beginning to sound to me as if President Lethe has, him or herself, a sexual fetish for Buffalo shoes and is determined to have the Buffalo Boots brand falsely labelled as a company that produces shoes for fetishists.

I don't have anything against President Lethe or the opinions. Later on, if this article is expanded beyond merely being a stub, the fetish reference can also be included. All I want is for there to be a good, fair, and correct article on Buffalo Boots.

Tom88 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Tom88.

1. By this 'fairness' line of reasoning, every time one article is lacking in relevant information, all other articles should be made to be similarly lacking. If the article on one town fails to mention the number of that town's population, we don't go removing the population item from articles on all other towns: we fill in the missing information. The go-go-boot fetish should be mentioned in that article and cited.

2. This isn't about your personal beliefs, but about Wikipedia policy on what counts as a reputable source for this type of information.

3. I'm glad you know German. But there may be others here who don't. I thought it worth pointing out that the present discussion at that page, which has posts from as long ago as 2005, doesn't have any arguments, let alone convincing ones, for keeping the fetish information out of the German article, let alone this English one. I'm curious to know on what basis you believe that you, "more than anyone, would know [* * *] how this article should be shaped."

4. A bad light? Wikipedia is about facts. If it's your own point of view that an object is in a bad light when it is fetishized, that's O.K.—but it's not what Wikipedia is about. Your measurement of "1/3" is debatable. If you want a greater portion of the article to concentrate on other aspects of the brand and the footwear, then go ahead and increase the size of that portion. I have plans to expand the article but have yet to get around to it. There aren't many ways of shrinking the size of the fetish mention without making it even more objectionable to you (e.g., starting off with "Buffalo Boots is a German brand of fetishized shoes") or eliminating it altogether; so the way to decrease its portion of the article is for someone to expand the other portions of the article. (And, every time you add "some", you superfluously increase the length of the fetish paragraph. No extra information is added by "also" and "for some"—but "Certain styles of Buffalo shoes are also a sexual fetish for some" does have 33% more words than it would have without those three.)

5. If I fail to convince you, that's too bad. But facts are facts, regardless of who is or isn't convinced of them. You say that leaving out "some" "makes it sound as if everyone has a fetish for Buffalo shoes". Perhaps it sounds that way to you. Perhaps it sounds that way to others, too. But Wikipedia can't tiptoe around every possible point at which a reader may misinterpret straightforward words. See the tourism example, above. "My only concern is for others". So far, the only persons to voice an opinion here are you, I, and Guinnog—all of whom seem to grasp, regardless of "some", that not every human being fetishizes these shoes. 100% of actual persons who speak on the matter understand the issue. At the moment, those who don't understand are the readers in your hypothesis—who would be readers who misunderstand plain English.

Then you write about having "the Buffalo Boots brand falsely labelled as a company that produces shoes for fetishists". This is a simple logical fallacy. You acknowledge that the shoes produced by the company are a fetish (among "some", as we agree—I inherently implicitly, you explicitly): ergo the company produces fetish shoes. If you mean to say that you don't want readers to think that the company intends it shoes primarily for fetishists and markets them explicitly in that way, then say that. Incidentally, that is not the logical conclusion that a mere mention of the fetish leads to.

President Lethe 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand name, and types of products

Tom88, I have reverted the article so that the brand name listed is simply Buffalo, rather than Buffalo Boots, in accordance with the brand that appears on the merchandise and its packaging, at the website, in catalogues, &c. (When I say "brand" here, I mean the visible mark, the logo.)

Although footwear and bags are the main items for sale at Buffalo's website, have a look, for example, at jeans from Buffalo, bearing a large initial B from the Buffalo brand, a women's top whose tag can just be seen to bear the Buffalo brand, more Buffalo trousers with the B, a bikini swimsuit listed as being by Buffalo and appearing on the same page as a large image of the Buffalo brand, a jacket bearing the Buffalo brand, another top bearing the Buffalo brand, trousers, a jacket, and shirts, all bearing the Buffalo brand, a tanktop bearing the Buffalo brand, a bra bearing the Buffalo brand, stockings from Buffalo—only a tiny fraction of the non-shoe, non-boot Buffalo clothing available. I'll update the article to reflect the range of garments.

President Lethe 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the reason for going back to "fetish", with a link to the "Sexual fetishism" article, instead of "shoe fetish", with a link to the "Shoe fetish" article, is that Buffalo stockings, Buffalo boots, and Buffalo socks are not shoes but are part of the Buffalo footwear fetish. — President Lethe 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

President Lethe,

You say "Buffalo stockings, Buffalo boots, and Buffalo socks are not shoes." Obviously, boots are shoes. And links you give, justifying the fetish, only deal with Buffalo's shoes. So, logically, the fetish only involves their shoes/footwear. That is why I have changed it to "shoe fetish", rather than the less specific "sexual fetish."

Aside from their official site, I have also visited numerous Buffalo stores and have never seen them sell actual clothing. Only shoes and accesories. In addition, I believe you need better evidence than merely eBay pages to justify that they are not only a shoe brand.

Tom 88 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that some say that boots are a subset of shoes. But, if you peruse those websites more carefully, you'll find fetish material featuring Buffalo-brand socks and stockings with no shoes or boots in sight, in addition to the shoe and boot fetish material. Your experience in stores does not disprove the existence of the merchandise available on eBay. The present text doesn't say that the company manufactures that merchandise (though it probably does), but instead says on what type of articles the brand appears. — President Lethe 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

("I believe you need better evidence [* * *] that they are not only a shoe brand." (I know this is just another instance of imprecise wording on your part, but ...) You seem to accept the contents of the official website as truth, and you seem to be aware that it offers Buffalo-brand bags. So ... "they are not only a shoe brand". — President Lethe 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

Non-eBay: Buffalo socks, trousers, and jackets; Buffalo underwear, swimsuits, and tops; Buffalo skirts, trousers, jackets, and shirts. — President Lethe 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment

It's really nice to see the improvements that the dialogue here has produced in the article. Well done to you both for your hard work. --Guinnog 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Few More Minor Edits & Further Suggestions

President Lethe,

I have made a few more edits to this page. I think it sounds better if we put the "perhaps best known for its footwear" before the headquarters part rather than after. In the second big paragraph, I've changed it to "Buffalo also manufactures...". This is to clarify, essentially, that they do manufacture the products rather than just slap their brand name on them. Plus, it avoids having two paragraphs both begin with "Buffalo's". I've also modified the fetish reference slightly. You previously mentioned that fetishism involving Buffalo products not only involves their footwear, but also stockings, etc. So, therefore, the fetish reference shouldn't merely label the footwear as a fetish.

I hope we have now reached some sort of consenus as opposed to following an "editing war." Nevertheless, I still advocate the removal of the fetish reference.

I have some suggestions:

1) Since, you changed it from "Buffalo Boots" to simply "Buffalo", I believe we should also change the title of this article from "Buffalo Boots" to "Buffalo (brand)".

2) Add/remove/change the pictures. I personally believe those pictures are a bit dull. Maybe someone could also add the Buffalo logo onto the page.

Tom 88 09:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tom88.

I'm going to remove "located" from the headquarters sentence, for concision.

As I view the matter, shoes, boots, stockings, and socks are all footwear. Stockings may go far up the leg; but they still entirely enclose the foot.

I also will change "have become" back to a simple form of "to be". Rather than "apples have become an ingredient of pies", we simply say "apples are used in pies".

I think your point about "Buffalo Boots" vs. "Buffalo (brand)" for the article title is definitely worth considering. Perhaps one of us can email the company and find out its official name (you know, the one on the tax paperwork and all that); whether the official name has changed over the years; and the level of connection or separation between such things as Buffalo, Buffalo Boots, Buffalo London, &c.

Part of the reason behind my not saying "Buffalo also manufactures" was the uncertainty about which items are still being made and which ones used to be made but now are found only mostly on eBay and at similar sources. Still, from the official site and first-hand, non-eBay clothing retailers, we now have support for shoes, boots, hosiery, trousers, skirts, shirts, bags, swimsuits, and undergarments—so let's stick with your "manufactures" wording.

Copies of those pictures have been sitting on my computer, waiting for me to get around to making them look spiffier. Yes, a logo sounds good. And perhaps a diagram showing one of the most famous models of the platform shoe and highlighting its visual details that also appeared on several other Buffalo models would be interesting. We should, of course, not turn this into a Buffalo gallery (for that's not what Wikipedia is about, and there are plenty of those on the web already); but such a shoe illustration seems to me to be in line with what the brand may be most known for ... and may be of more interest than, say, a T-shirt with the logo emblazoned across the chest.

President Lethe 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)