Talk:List of shoe-throwing incidents

Disputed

The entire "In the Arab World: a gesture of contempt" section is dubious and should be removed. Tossing one's shoe at someone is no more a gesture of contempt in the Arab world than in the Western world, or any other part of the globe. It's no different, and is somewhat akin to placing a "In the Arab World: offensive" section in Insults; in other words, it's silly and unnecessary. Or should we create sections called "In the United States: also a gesture of contempt" and "In Thailand: a gesture of contempt there, too"? -Alexanderj (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong indeed. It represents a call to wage war on a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.240 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this section predates the Bush incident by at least a whole year. There's repeated edits to the section dating from 2007. I remember hearing about the significance of footwear in the Middle East back when Saddam's statue went down, so the section isn't without basis. --DLWormwood (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are wrong. And your whiny obnoxious "no creating an us v. them dynamic" bawwwing is as annoying as it is pretentious. Leave wikipedia. <3. ----

needs re-write (unsigned IP comment)

Need some reedit.Too repetitive.Also marked by POV.Giving glory to the act of the journalist (too much)

Not too sure why there is so much talk of George Bush in the intorduction of the article...shouldn't that just be left to the famous incidents section? It seems as if this article is as much an anti-Bush article as it is a "shoeing" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.52.2 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeing is not a method of protest that is primarily seen in Arabic countries

Shoeing has only been seen once in Iraq when Saddam Hussein regime fell and people were happy about it. Why are you insisting on stating that it is a method of protest notably seen in "all" Arabic countries? You are stereotyping here and then using a reference from an Indian magazine to cite something related to Arabian culture? Where is the logic? Among all the protests seen in most Arabic countries I have never witnessed anyone using this method.

If you cannot prove your claims for this sentence "is a method of protest that is primarily seen in Arabic countries" then please remove it. --Alaam (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References have been supplied. --David Shankbone 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cassel - Dbachmann - misrepresentation

I take exception to a lead sentence I wrote characterized as misrepresenting the source. Cassel used the entire piece to cast doubt on this, using some of the most prominent examples. For instance, that Iraqis poured out into the streets and beat Saddam Hussein's statue with shoes, he write:

It's not surprising that since the George W. Bush shoe-dodging incident the U.S. media has been recalling the infamous "shoeing" of the Saddam statue by a few Iraqis after American forces had brought it down. These images were aired over and over in the international media to show that Iraqis celebrated the toppling of their former ruler. Reports later emerged that this event had been mostly staged by the American military and the media had not accurately shown how few the numbers of people who had actually been around to hit the decapitated statue with their shoes. Most Iraqis did not celebrate the event because many were frightened in their homes, or packing their bags to leave their country and the extreme violence that their occupiers had brought with them to Iraq.

Then later, he writes:

It was upon hearing these words that Iraqi journalist Muntadher al-Zaidi stood up and like those confronted with Sharon's provocation, threw whatever he had on him that could be easily made into a projectile. Al-Zaidi was also sure to send a verbal attachment with the shoes when he shouted in Arabic, "this is a goodbye kiss, you dog!" Had more Iraqi civilians been allowed into the press conference, we can be sure that most of their shoes, keys, cell phones and whatever else they had on them would've also landed on the stage.

Then later:

But why did Western media constantly explain that shoe throwing is considered offensive in Arab culture? Unlike the entire Western media, I'm not going to claim to know the answer to this great cultural phenomenon. Maybe it's not a phenomenon at all. Maybe it is what any of us would do if someone as arrogant as Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush visited the place that they've brutalized for years

And then if his questioning this isn't clear enough to the reader at this point, Cassel goes on to use a demonstration about egg and pie-throwing in American culture, and ends up with this:

Could it be that Iraqis and Palestinians aren't as armed and violent as they're portrayed, and that the shoe is just something that everyone is armed, or rather footed with, and can easily be thrown? Perhaps, but when described in the U.S. it always has to be exaggerated to fit into Bush's simplistic equation that "they" are so much different than "us."

Dbachmann, please don't tag and question information lightly, or without reading the source, as the entire point of Cassel's piece was to question this as an "Arab phenomenon". --David Shankbone 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, the article read "Matthew Cassel of The Electronic Intifada questioned whether it is an Arab cultural phenomenon at all". As your quotes make clear, there is no doubt that this is about an "Arab cultural phenomenon", Cassel merely said "I'm not going to claim to know the answer to this great cultural phenomenon". Now per WP:DUE, it is perfectly unclear why this article should refer to Cassel's non-opinion in particular, especially as the context isn't a study of the cultural significance of shoes, but an opinion piece aiming at emphasiying the plight of the Palestinians. Offtopic to say the least. The point here isn't any implication that "they" are so much different than "us.", it is simply the fact that nobody in Western culture would consider the shoe as a means of insult. Shoe tossing is a perfectly harmless pastime without any insulting implications. The Mosque article points out at length how taking off your shoes is a custom universal in the Islamic world. Nobody in the Western world would think of taking off their shoew before entering a church. Thus, there is plainly a regional cultural difference in need of an explanation. It is correct that the custom isn't Arab or Islamic in particular, it is rather Middle Eastern. As all of the Middle East has been Islamic since the 8th century, the two are largely coterminous, although it would be interesting to know whether the Middle Eastern Christian minority have customs of taking off their shoes in churches. --dab (𒁳) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's preposterous. You don't have to agree with Cassel, but the entirety of the piece is to dispute the western media framing it as an Arabic phenomenon. And he represents a significant opinion out there, whether you like it or not, and he represents The Electronic Intifada, which is a notable organization. Otherwise, your claims are a complete denial of reality, and you are taking one sentence in a lengthy piece to justify your POV, and taking it out of context. --David Shankbone 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are suggesting my "pov" might be. I am talking in terms of notability, not pov. Your source clearly has a political bias and is simply using the "shoe" thing as a feature to make a point about the "Western media". That would be fair enough if we were discussing a political question, or the Western media, but we aren't. you seem to be ignoring the fact that this isn't the article on the "Bush shoeing" incident, but about the custom of "shoeing" in the Islamic world in general. I fail to see how Cassel's musings on "Western media" are relevant to the topic. See also WP:Recentism. If it consoles you, I have just added a quote by a medieval Islamic scholar who thought that focus on "inward cleanliness" is more important and more in keeping with true Islam than obsessing over shoes etc. Btw, I was being serious, if we can figure out how the Christian minority in the Middle East views shoes, it would be a valuable addition to the article. Your source says that the "Western media" reported unfairly on the Bush shoeing thing. I don't see how "NPOV" dictates that this particular piece is referenced in the "context" section on an article on the role of the shoe in Middle Eastern culture. This isn't media reactions to the Bush shoeing incident. WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV too. Btw, please also stop restoring the unreferenced "shooing" reference -- shoo is an English exclamation, without any connection to shoes. See e.g. here. If anyone quotable has ever made a connection between "shooing" and "shoeing", we would need to attribute it per WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 22:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that Buddhists and Hindus also tend to take off their shoes in places of worship. Furthermore, barefootedness also has a sacral component even in Western culture, as the Romans depicted deities barefoot. Depicting an emperor with bare feet amounted to suggesting that emperor's divine nature. But lacking a reference connecting all of this, adding it to the article would be a bit of a tangent. --dab (𒁳) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I think I have compiled enough non-recentist, non-blogospheric references that establish that the notion of shoes being impure isn't peculiar to Arabs or Islam so much as peculiar to the (pre-Islamic) Near East. I argue that this renders the rather fluffy "reference" of Mr. Cassel saying "I'm not going to claim to know", "Could it be", "Perhaps" and "Maybe it's not a phenomenon at all" in a commentary on the media response to the Bush incident less than essential to this article. --dab (𒁳) 23:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Ambassador to Sweden shoed

See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.163.87 (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

original research

Historically, the notion of shoes as a symbol of impurity is widespread throughout the Middle East and is not Arab or Islamic in particular. Exodus 3:5 has:

"And he [God talking to Moses ] said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest [is] holy ground."

When a Jewish priest, a Kohen, offers the Priestly Blessing in the Synagogue he removes his shoes prior to ritually washing his hands. Similarly, Muslims universally take off their shoes before entering a Mosque. The term for "shoe" or "sandal", na`al is glossed by Gesenius: "casting down a shoe on any country was a symbol of taking possession". In Acts 13:51, Paul and Barnabas "shook off the dust of their feet against them [viz. against the Jews of Antioch ]" in an act of defiance before continuing their journey.

A 16th century Ethiopian bishop acting as an ambassador from Dawit II of Ethiopia, is reported to have told John III of Portugal that "We are not permitted to enter the church, except barefooted." Adam Clarke even suggested that the custom of worshipping the Deity barefooted was general among all nations of antiquity.[6]

I have a problem with this whole piece here. Ok, so the first sentence says that it's not confined to Islam/Arabs, but is a full Middle Eastern thing. Fine, I can buy that.

Then it goes on to talk about people taking off their shoes when they pray/enter a church/etc, or as a sort of flag for conquering a country. Oh yeah, and something about someone knocking sand off their shoes at as an act of defiance. This is all supposed to prove the initial statement, as far as I can tell. This brings up two questions:

Now how does any of that prove that shoes are a widespread Middle Eastern "symbol of impurity"? None of those stories suggest that the shoes were considered by those people to be "impure". I take my shoes off when I enter my apartment, but that doesn't mean I consider them "impure"- I just don't want to get dirt on my floor.
Secondly, if it does somehow prove it, then where's the citation (ie, says who?).

Remember, Wikipedia isn't looking for original research, which, as it stands right now, is all that this section is- it's not our job to prove stuff, it's our job to point to someone else who has proven it. I'm flagging the section as such so it has a chance to be fixed. Cheers --DarthBinky (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In African American culture shoe throwing is done in churches when someone can really sing. Bhj867 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusive to "Islamic world"

I just removed a section citing the times of India that states that shoes are seen as impure in the Islamic world. It might be true for India, but there's a simpler explanation.

The reason why it is an insulting gesture is linked to why Asian cultures tend to remove their shoes before entering a house. Shoes pick up all kinds of dirt off the floor and its a matter of hygiene that they have two pairs of footwear, one which doesn't leave the house.

That's why if you throw a shoe at a Christian Arab, Jewish Arab, or whatever, they will be equally insulted. I hope that clears it up. To be honest, I assumed it was insulting in all cultures, but I guess I took that for granted. 202.89.188.44 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also not exclusive to the Middle east. In Quebec, the National improvisation league lends audience members undershoes so they can throw them at the ref (well not directly) in case of an unpopular decision. This supposedly takes from the fact that well-to-do hockey audiences in the NHL did sometimes throw shoes at the refs (often directly) during hockey matches (they borrow a lot of the trappings of hockey in their improv rules). The first thing is easily sourced, the second will take a bit more effort. 70.53.136.137 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about title of the article

Ah, sorry about that. Must pay more attention. Though, I have been going through the article for sometime, and I observe that the word "shoeing" is likely a neologism (in the particular context). Since this article is a collection of "shoe hurling" incidents, it ought to be renamed as such. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the title of the article, but it would probably be more descriptive to name it something else. Shoe tossing already exists. In looking at the collection of cited sources in the article, my preference, FWIW, would be "Shoe throwing" rather than "Shoe hurling". Hurling seems too aggressive, whereas throwing seems a bit more neutral, although, admittedly, we're not talking about neutral conduct. Shoe-throwing incident redirects to the Shoeing article, but I don't care for the hyphen. Shoe hurling also redirects.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more on the lines of List of shoe throwing incidents. Shoe throwing would fall afoul of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how "shoe throwing" would be a problem for WP:NOTDICT. God knows we have articles about words with far less information in them that supposedly pass muster as "encylcopedic". I think our guidelines on the dictionary issue are particularly incomprehensible, but that's just me. As for calling it a list, it seems like it's much more than a list given the Context section. Usually, there is only a lead and the list (WP:LIST). There is also too much information in the article for each incident to qualify as a typical list article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point being, we cannot go on indiscriminately collecting information about all the reported shoe-throwing incidents around the world. Personally, I don't think we should even include reported incidents if they cover borderline notable individuals. Just thinking out loud. In any case, the word "shoeing" is a neologism, and so would be "shoe throwing", if we attempt to give it a definition it does not yet have (WP:SYN). A list would be a rather indiscriminate collection of information of all such reported incidents around the world, and will possibly grow beyond what can be sensibly managed and used. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more important to focus on what incidents we should report and what incidents we should not (your point about notability although you'd have to call it noteworthiness to avoid the somewhat silly notion that notability relates only to article creation, not to content). I don't see why "show throwing" is a neologism - I can see calling shoeing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from User talk:Bbb23

Move proposal

The title of this article "shoeing" is a neologism and constitutes original research. It should be moved to a more appropriate title. In the discussion, Shoe throwing and List of show throwing incidents came up. Please let us know what you think. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to List of shoe throwing incidents. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, Nick, there's been no further discussion or consensus. You just picked the title you preferred.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just means that not many people are interested in this article. I waited for two days and no one came forward to express their opinion. Since "Shoeing" in itself is a neologism, I moved the article to where it is now. We can still move it somewhere else depending on whether there is a better suggestion and a willingness to clean up the article so that it resembles something other than a list. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

As per the tag, this article is in need of major restructuring. I am going to be bold and reorganize it by getting rid of the individual event headings; if the events are organized under year heading and bulleted, date first, that should suffice. The individual event headings are unneccessary. Comments? – T C Memoire 15:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of shoe-throwing incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of shoe-throwing incidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of shoe-throwing incidents. 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728266202&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79054&sectionid=351020606
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926103515/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Another-shoe-this-time-aimed-at-Advani/447692/3/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Another-shoe-this-time-aimed-at-Advani/447692/3/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cwg-scam-suresh-kalmadi-arrives-in-court-to-shoe-welcome/781669/0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shoe-throwing incidents. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309170033/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=95434&sid=27323606&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=95434&sid=27323606&con_type=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe-throwing 1000 BCE, really?

The biblical references to King David, etc, appear to be both allegorical, and totally unrelated to anything like a "shoe-throwing incident" as political protest. As far as I can see this is deep into WP:OR territory, by making novel "discoveries" from the Biblical text.--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old 19th century source on wedding customs, but still seems more relevant than directly citing the Bible.--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Chris Edler incident

I couldn't find any mention of the Chris Edler incident on the internet, so I believe it's not notable enough to be included in this list and removed it in my edit today. If anyone finds a reference to it they can put it back. Violetist (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khrushchev

Should mention of Nikita Khrushchev's famous shoe-banging incident be mentioned here, or is this article only to do with shoes actually thrown at people? GnocchiFan (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]