Talk:Natural hoof care/Archive 1

message: I think it's a bad idea. Barefoot horse page could be merged with pages about new and very attractive topics about horses, based on ecology and ethology much more than on "tradition". Some of such topics are Natural communication, Natural hoof care, Bitless riding, Natural horse boarding, Natural hoof trimming, Natural horsemanship. I saw a recent, excellent  article on Wikipedia about Natural horsemanship. Perhaps an "index page" of these topics would be very useful.
--Alex brollo 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Barefoot horse with Horseshoe page? 

message: I added a mention to diet and some links.
--Alex brollo 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some adds

message: I added some wikilinks and I erased definitions of common words (Anatomy, phisiology)--Alex brollo 07:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some adds and edits 

message: I saw a NPOV mark on this article, but I didn't find any discussion about.
I well know that the matter of this article - just like many other "horse-topics" - could flame. But, when editing other horse articles reporting bare "received ideas" (see Horseshoe as an example), I never add such a template. I simply edited them, adding what - in my documented opinion - was lacking.
Please add - as required - some comment as soon as possible. On the contrary, time some days, I'll simply remove the template. --Alex brollo 09:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I softened the NPOV tag down to a "check POV" tag.  The article is improving, but it also is pretty quiet, the controversy is not all that heated.  I made a bunch of suggestions as inline comments in the edit window but no one appears to have had the time to consider them.   In short, there is still some POV bias, but I think it's mostly a style problem -- rephrasing a few areas will take care of most of it. Montanabw 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV template without any discussion 

message: I'm goig to remove NPOV template on the article, because it has been added without any comment in its Talk page.
Please consider various points in Wikiquette remacks. 
Please consider too that I know that this article has been posted by an horse expert, not so experienced in wiki conventions. Such experts are a great resource of wiki project, and, in my opinion, they are to be helped much more than discouraged.
I'd like to do my best editing any lack of neutrality in this, as in other incoming, innovative horse-related articles, but I need a comment about matters of controversy (and, as you see, some help about English). --Alex brollo 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that was me, wasn't it? I wasn't intending to be negative; I just felt that the article could use a viewpoint from outside the barefoot horse movement — it seemed to be full of gushing praise and empty of any criticism! Perhaps a section entitled "mainstream criticism" or "disadvantages of unshod horses" could be added for a little balance?I should add that I'm not opposed to this movement, nor do I know particularly much about horse care! I was just passing through. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV template without comment removed 

message: Take a look to Laminitis talk and history. There is just a good example of what I was pointing out in the previous talk post. Please help with good research sources and a careful NPOV!Alex brollo 07:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy into Laminitis article 

message: I added a scientific article by dr Tomas Teskey about shoe damages, and then I removed unsourced template (in my opinion, external links and their content were already very good sources: please read them!).
Any help about neutrality is welcome! But it is very difficult for me to have a NPOV point of view about this topic. Please add something to ameliorate NPOV - consider that there is a Horseshoe article with an opposite point of view. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced template revomed 

message: I've added this page to this WikiProject - see on Talk:Farrier. I've classed it as Start for the moment, but I reckon its nearly up there with B - just wasn't quite sure that a B should have active NPOV disputes and so few citations.
Dlh-stablelights 11:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "low," primarily because the "barefooter" movement is basically the next thing to a cult (Sorry barefooters, but you are), it rates about the same place as an article on, oh, chelates or magnets for arthritis, or ginko balboa or whatever ranks in human medicine...alternative approach at best.  This is NOT to say that it isn't good for horses to be barefoot -- it often is -- but this particular article is about a branch of hoof care that takes the extreme position that horseshoes are always bad.   (luckily they have spared us, for example, the "horseshoe nails give horses metal poisoning" rant).  I tried to go in here and clean it up some, but realized that the farrier and horseshoe articles were a lot more NPOV (most farriers eagerly state that horses are often better off barefoot).  Montanabw(talk) 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be careful; claiming that the barefoot movement is a cult is a pretty strong POV and likely to ruffle more than a few feathers.  Also, to correct you, barefoot advocates do not say that horseshoes are always bad.  Again, your personal POV, and not appropriate here. --AeronM (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Veterinary Medicine

message: Shouldn't this article be called "Barefoot horse movement" instead, since it's about the modern barefoot horse movement, not barefoot horses in general? Sqrtminusone 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.  What probably is needed is an article entitled "hoof care."  What exists now are the articles farrier, horseshoe and this one.  What's missing is the generic overall one.  There is some info in horse care, but not specific to just feet. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Barefoot horse movement" redirects here, and is addressed in this article. --AeronM (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AeronM. I am in favor of keeping the current name.  I think this allows for the most flexibility.  "Barefoot horse movement" seems to me to be a subset of the broader topic.  For example, it seems that one of the opening sections could be titled something like 'feral horses' which could explain the findings of the vaious studies on these populations.  There could also be a short section (if all agreed, of course) on horses who are shod through much of the year, but have a barefooted period every year for the fhooves to recover.--Getwood (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I have removed this section. I am sure this will raise issues with the barefoot movement people, but the whole section is unreferenced, uses words such as "always". Unreferenced statements that shod horses tendto incur excessive lameness....... It also leads to the conclusion that horseshoes are being used on horses because of tradition, rather then science and observation. This section needs to be rewritten and actually talk about the structure of the hoof, if that should be included in this article. --mceder (u t c) 12:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument that this article needs a lot of help.  I just don't want to start edit wars.  I am not a "barefoot movement" person (though, truth be told, all my horses have been barefoot for several years) so I have been pretty careful wading in here because I don't want to be jumped on.  I guess my thoughts on the matter is that it is OK to edit if you want to, but be fair to both sides, don't turn the article into an "anti-movement" piece, add footnotes and remember WP:NPOV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the hoof section removed

message: I have redirected "Barefoot trim" page (which I started but am now convinced it belongs here as a section) here, and will continue to flesh out the section....  --AeronM (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect/Merge

message: Meanwhile, am in the process of asking/getting permissions to use various photos showing the types of barefoot trims.  --AeronM (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of photos, does it not strike others as ironic that the opening picture on the 'barefoot horses' page is of a horse in boots?  It seems like that picture should be moved down adjacent to a section where the transition period is discussed, and an image of a barefoot horse could be used for the opening.--Getwood (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%.  --AeronM (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: I removed the POV tag as it looks as though the article has come a long way since the tag was added in 2006.  Open to discussion if anyone disagrees.  --AeronM (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda sorta, but before I slap the POV tag back on, here is my concern:  While the "shoes are always evil" thing has been toned down a lot, and the article is indeed much improved, I still feel this article still has a slant too much toward the "movement" side of things (Strasser in particular has something of a cult going), and yet the depth of the controversy is not really addressed (Miller goes over it very well and in a balanced way in Revolution in Horsemanship if you want a source to use).  While personally I haven't put shoes on any of my horses for about four years, and I clearly prefer to keep them barefoot as much as possible, I do not consider myself a "barefooter" because the movement itself encompasses a considerable amount of management in addition to shoe removal and specialized trims that is simply impractical for the average horse owner (who can't afford let their horse run on 40 acres and do little mini-trims every week). Yet, when I read this article, I still feel like it lumps people into two camps, good people who never shoe horses and bad people who want shoes on their horses all the time.  I would like to see more acknowledgement that there is a huge amount of middle ground here.  This article is better, but I still feel like it lumps people of moderate views, such as myself, into the "you don't believe in the benefits of barefoot" camp, which is simply not the case.   I guess I'd be happy to see more of what Getwood mentioned, that one POV is that shoes have their place, but even people who shoe their horses still like to give their horses time off from shoes.  Something like that.  Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually think this article is in pretty good shape as is.  It describes the topic, it's not too long, and it seems pretty NPOV.  I don't think the article emphasizes the barefoot 'movement' to the point of excluding the shoeing advocates.... on the contrary, I think the part about the people who advocate shoeing is good.  And after all, this is an article about keeping horses barefoot.  I'd hate for it to get to the point where we have to split off a whole new page to describe the controversy, like the Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation Controversy (now 'Opposition') pages...... ugh, what a mess those are. --AeronM (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag removed

message: It seems that the nutrition comments are sort of an orphan here.  Obviously, the movement component is important in particular to barefoot health.  The nutrition part is obviously important too, but doesn't somehow fit here.  It seems like it belongs either on Horse hoof or Equine nutrition.  Maybe a comment saying something like "barefoot advocates typically emphasize proper nutrition as a critical part of the horse's care" would cover it?Getwood (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section doesn't flow brilliantly at this point, but I do think it relates to the topic in that it (nutrition) is very directly affecting things like laminitis, which is very much releived (in many cases) by barefoot techniques.  I will try to tweak it to better reflect the connection... if it still doesn't work, we can take it out.  --AeronM (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoof health