Talk:High heel policy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High heel policy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from High heel policy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1770, Parliament considered an act concerning high heels (pictured) and now, in 2016, it is making a fresh inquiry?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/High heel policy.

Wikipedia

Useful source

Research into the legality of high-heel policies by a corporate lawyer: http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=law_pubs

Divide into forbidden and required?

Another way to organise this page would be have a section on "policies requiring the wearing of high heels" and another on "policies forbidding the wearing of high heels". Thoughts? I'm about to knock off, back later. MurielMary (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sized image

It seemed rather large. MurielMary (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on your screen and mine is currently 1680x1050. I tried 373px as being 10% of the original and it worked well for me. 150px seems too small and is making the caption quite crowded on my screen. The default is 220px so I will try that now to see if it fits the Goldilocks principle. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No heels

@Andrew Davidson: I found some interesting incident which you might like to add to the article. Just see [1] and [2]. How's it? --Mhhossein (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC) @Andrew Davidson: ??? --Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

I read "A 17th-century law in Massachusetts announced that women would be subjected to the same treatment as witches if they lured men into marriage via the use of high-heeled shoes.[3] In 1770, an act was introduced into the British parliament which would have applied the same penalties as witchcraft to the use of high heels and other cosmetic devices.[4]" This is a hoax, an urban legend, invented in the 19th century as page filler by a newspaper. I currently have no sources available and English is not my native tongue, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct this. IMHO it should be mentioned but as a hoax, not as facts.Maggy (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maggy. Do you have reliable sources saying it's a hoax? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mhhossein, I've found this source and this article. Apparently the Hoops and Heels Act was never passed. Another inconsistency: The Witchcraft Act 1735 stated that witchcraft and magic were illusory, treating as an offence not the supposed practice of witchcraft but the superstitious belief in its existence. How the same penalties as witchcraft would have been applied 35 years after this act eludes me. 91.38.190.86 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Daugl[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Kutoo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]