Talk:Navicular syndrome

message: For a view of Navicular Disease that is different from both the barefoot movement and the traditional veterinary/farrier approach, please go to http://www.horseperspective.com/navicular.html.Equinewellness 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This link does bring up an important point about the body's ability to adapt, and our general inferiority in comparison to mother nature when it comes to really knowing what is right and wrong about a foot's balance.  However, the article also speaks of "assumptions" about "certain changes in the navicular area" which have not been shown to be true.  This is an unfortunate statement not based on any science: degeneration of the navicular bone is a very real thing, and a very real cause of lameness.  It is true that over the years many cases of foot-related lameness were lumped, improperly, into the navicular disease category.  With more advanced imaging techniques, many soft tissue injuries have been identified as causes of heel pain.  These imaging techniques are also very good at identifying specific lesions within the navicular bone itself.--Getwood (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds interesting, but the horseperspective link doesn't work. Welcomebob (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is a different opinion about Navicular Disease

message: I have found that gallium nitrate is very effective in treating navicular disease and arthritis in horses, but it is not approved and is so cheap that it will never be approved.  See http://george-eby-research.com/html/nav.html for more information.  Eby says navicular disease is an arthitis of the navicular joint, and that gallium has been shown effective as an anti-arthritis agent.
:Gallium nitrate should be added as early studies of its use have shown some reversal of certain navicular symptoms. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is gallium nitrate is not mentioned?

message: I found some very interesting news about both navicular and laminitis in works from the barefoot horse movement (as an example, http://www.hoofrehab.com and http://www.barefoothorse.com ). See also the new articles barefoot horses and Jaime Jackson 
I'm going to translate this article into Italian and I'll add some mention to barefoot point of view  in Italian version. 
To the authors: can you review your English page?
--Alex brollo 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add some of the research that shows horses suffering from navicular can be managed (and in some cases, successfully reversed) when certain kinds of barefoot trimming therapies are used. --AeronM (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, please, not the "barefoot movement" again.  That was the big edit spat (that I was NOT involved in) from over a year ago. All the various horse hoof articles got drug into it, the farriers were snarking at the barefooters, oh dear.   Oh let's NOT crank that up all over again?  Sincerely:  How about checking out barefoot horses first and seeing if there is a section on it there. If, not, add one, that would fit there without too many people being upset. Then maybe put in a real brief section here, saying that the barefoot movement has a treatment approach, and wikilinking to that article. That would be a better way to handle this.  (Trust me, vets and farriers surf these pages for POV on this issue.  It's another one that gets people VERY upset.)   Also, be sure to source claims of "cures" extremely carefully -- Navicular is very complicated, and there is more than one type of change now grouped under the heading "navicular."  Been much new research, some in the past year, look up studies in TheHorse.com, lots of news out there.   I say this as someone who rarely shoes my horses, OK?  Sincerely begging you to take this to the appropriate page.  Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Aeron, I have scarcely ever even edited this particular page.  Your ad hominem attack is completely unwarranted in this situation.  I have seen that you have spread your sweetness and goodwill to things other than the horse articles and a pattern is coming clear to me.  This is not my POV on navicular disease; I have never owned a horse with it and I have interests in other types of lameness.  The POV here is that of the mainstream veterinary profession, as I can best understand it, not having a DVM myself.  Indeed, I most kindly and respecfully beg you to take your own advice and realize that your POV is not the only one out there. Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, where is the ad hominem attack? --AeronM (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As it sits at the moment, it isn't too bad.  I only tagged one section.  The "research" is a little iffy, but what you have later on does keep the shoeing perspective too, without deletions, so I can live with it.  Montanabw(talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it's free advertising for Rockley Farms, which is not allowed here, and so removed. Something a peer-reviewed article on the technique would be acceptable, but not a business promo page. Dr. Tesky is a practitioner, if one promoting some fringe views, so his source is OK for now, as it does verify the statement made.  However, given that he's on the editorial board for this fringe publication he is himself sort of a questionable source.  In general, it's best to find the best sources, for example, I saw a passing reverence to a Tesky article, "The Unfettered Foot, A Paradigm Change for Equine Podiatry", was published in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science in February, 2005.  That would be a better source than what's there.  Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please consider barefoot horse approach

message: From many months I added a remark into the talk page; there is an encreasing evidence that new opinions about navicular disease and its treatment need some mention.
My English is rather poor; I tried to write an article "Horse hoof" but I see that the result is far from good...
Please take a look to new opinions about navicular, following the links I mentioned in my first talk post (first to   Pete Ramey article about navicular and links page of his website). Very different from anything in present wiki article!  I think, no NPOV is possible, without a mention of those new ideas. And in my opinion, I can't merely add a link without a mention of its content inside the article!--Alex brollo 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the NPOV tag.  Though the article needs sourcing and proper references (to say nothing of proper formatting and major wordsmithing), it is pretty much the standard info on navicular, no real POV problem (other than, perhaps, to those with a POV, I suppose). Montanabw 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV added 

message: This article would benefit from some photos showing the hoof, and maybe a radiographic xray showing the navicular bone. --AeronM (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If you can find one that's OK with the wiki gods, go for it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: ::Note to all:  You may want to search for articles at The Horse.  This the flagship mainstream publication for the American Association of Equine Practitioners, has all its articles online for free if you login.  They have a number of articles discussing the most recent studies on navicular.  (And everything else)  Unbelievble databank of info.  Best of all, once you find one, they have a good cross-linking of related articles.   I also have to point out that, as the first paragraph of the article says, there are multiple conditions grouped under the heading "navicular," and this is an area of study in a lot of flux, so my suggestion to all is to footnote very carefully. I'm not participating on this one much because I have other fish to fry, but seeing as how there appears to be cooperation here, and that is GOOD, I wanted to mention some sources that I hope would be pretty NPOV in anyone's book.  AAEP is about as mainstream as you can get.  Montanabw(talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info... you are right, too, about the term "navicular" encompassing many different hoof probs..... so we need to be careful. --AeronM (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Research tip

message: Overall I am real pleased with the direction this article is going (and that I have been able to stay out of it!).   I think that the section on how shoeing may or may not "cause" navicular may need a little more of the nice terminology used in some other spots, saying "this specific groups says X, but this specific group says Y" phrasing rather than "research says..."  to get the POV tag to go away, but other than that, it's proceeding apace.  Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also pleased.  AeronM, I am glad that we are able to craft this together in a way that lets both sides be heard.  Your "one study" addition was absolutely appropriate.  While I personally disagree about the numbness issue, I think that it does belong in the article.  I won't complain about the mismatch between "several hoof experts" and one citation, because I know that there are many who do feel strongly about it.  Could I suggest changing "several hoof experts" to "barefoot trimming experts" or "barefoot trimming advocates" or something like that?  This would lay the cards on the table, answering Montanabw's "this specific group says X..." request.  It would also effectively show that the belief is held by not only one person, but without the need to use several citations.  On that note, it seems to me that we could clean up the references section.  I don't mean eliminate, but consolidate.  The Equine nutrition page uses a system that seems much cleaner.  When the same reference is needed multiple times, it does't appear over and over in the list.  Montanabw, I think this may be an area where you could advise?--Getwood (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrt "several hoof experts", I'd be happy with anything that accurately reflected what appears to be a single reference published by a foundation with no author attribution.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya. While I'm gathering some sources for the numbing issue, check out this excellent article by Pete Ramey (one of the leading hoofcare experts in the US) if you haven't already: it's here then scroll down to "Digging For The Truth About Navicular Syndrome." --AeronM (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's another great article.  I love the part about the 'big, mean cops had tears in their eyes' when the horse got better. --AeronM (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Folks, just trying to weign in as an NPOV here, I suggest that when you are making statements about theories that are in dispute between various practitioners, using neutral but descriptive terminology such as "barefoot trimming researchers" or "the American college of farriers," or "Veterinarians at the University of XYZ."  This allows the reader to assess the material for themselves.  "Several hoof experts" is pretty fuzzy.  I mean, define "expert."  PhD in exercise physiology?  Farrier with 40 years experience?  Licensed vet?  Joe Schmo with a theory that he will tell you about if you order his $19.95 DVD? (grin) Also, "several" has no inherent meaning; four or five people can be "several" in my book, but is it five out of ten or five out of a hundred?  You see the problem. IMHO, Clarity and footnoting settles many a problem.  (If you ever want to dip a toe into the world of minutae in citation, try any military history article!  gaah!  Those folks are so picky it's scary!)  Montanabw(talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AeronM- The Ramey article makes no mention of numbness, but emphasizes the toe first theory.  The hoofrehab article covers the same Ramey/Bowker/Rooney story as the Ramey article, again with no mention of numbness.  In fact, these theories state that "Dr. Rooney proved and published that it was actually the unnatural toe first movement (usually caused by avoiding heel pain) that causes navicular remodeling."  The third reference, the Drabek site, explains how numbness has been "proven to me time and time again" but gives as its only explanation the fact that horses are lamer barefoot than shod.  Hmmm.  The fourth quotes your currently used heal the hoof reference.  Not just parallel, but verbatim.  What you quote above is what we've already read.  None of these proves numbness.  And none even hint at any study in any concrete way that does.  The only study that it cites is the Pollitt study.  I will agree that the limbs in his study were numb, but only because they were disarticulated cadaver limbs.  Can we just go with the "Barefoot trimming experts say X" line?  No one disputes the absolute fact that barefoot experts say that feet are numb when shod.--Getwood (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Barefoot trimming experts" is fine.  Just wanted to let readers know  a) it was more than one person who mentioned the numbness, and b) that the people who do mention it are experts in their fields.  BTW, all my cited references do mention numbness.  You have to read the whole article.  --AeronM (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted edits, comment 

message: The b2b website link no longer seems to work.  AeronM, can you double check that I didn't change something when I consolidated?  Google brings up the archived page, but even the main page seems dead.   Thanks,--Getwood (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have fixed it cuz I just checked it and it works.  : )  --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct link 

message: Is there anyone who could shed some light on methods vets use to diagnosis 'navicular' and its underlying causes? Welcomebob (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the queue with the other 2000 articles in Wikiproject Equine that aren't at least B-class (smile).  There has been a lot of change in the medical research on this  condition in the last 5-10 years, and the whole article needs some serious work, but we are spread pretty thin on worker bees here.  If you want to help, I can point you to some good sources.  Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested, what are the sources? Welcomebob (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The best starting point is The Horse magazine, which is the American Association of Veterinary Practitioner's mass market horse publication for the general public and has tons of summaries on all the research, usually with a link or citation to whatever peer-reviewed study they are reporting on.  It's a gold mine.  I did a quick search for "Navicular" and got 9000 hits there!  Its a login required site but free to all.  Go over there and dig to your heart's content!  http://www.thehorse.com/search?q=Navicular  I'll be glad to  clarify any horse lingo or terms of art, etc... as would anyone else over at WikiProject Equine if you drop us a note! Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support as nom. See comments below.  Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Please DISCUSS adding the material on comfrey as a treatment or "cure" for navicular syndrome.  Such material is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE.  Further, per WP:RS, you cannot use wikipedia to cite itself - one article is not a reliable source for another.  Montanabw(talk) 16:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comfrey as a treatment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Navicular syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060917124407/http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/rirdc/articles/miscell/padua.htm to http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/rirdc/articles/miscell/padua.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Good new article.  Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Navicular syndrome. 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/20050805074532/http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02743.htm to http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02743.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)