Talk:Natural hoof care

POV fork talk

To whomever put the prod tag on this article, please read all this above discussion first. You see this is a longstanding article with a lot of controversy, but not really a candidate for deletion. To some extent, this article definitely does have POV problems -- and I have been one of the people pointing them out -- but it isn't a fringe theory at the level of WP:FRINGE in the way something like holocaust denial or something. It's offbeat, but not off the deep end. So while I will be the first to agree that the article needs work, I will also be the first to quote Voltaire ("I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it") on the topic of a prod tag. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory

This is (to some extent) a fringe theory in veterinary medicine. It's therefore necessary to include the case for horseshoes. While not ideal, the new section (borrowed from Horseshoe) at least begins to address the counter-arguement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Some mention would be acceptable under WP:UNDUE, but that's excessive. Reverted. Howabout a single paragraph and a link? Artw (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And you'll note that it already has that in the form of the controversy section - why not work to improve that rather than cut and pasting in content from another article? Artw (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you folks don't mind, let me wordsmith a compromise here. I'm one of the active WikiProject editors and have been trying to be the neutral arbitrator on these horseshoe vs barefoot articles. I can't say that I'm completely neutral (because I do think it's OK to have a farrier shoe a horse that needs it). Can't say this is something I want to spend a lot of time on, but take a look at what I have edited. No need for a spat, just everyone remember to re-read WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and most of all, WP:NPOV. Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I proposed this article be merged because it is pretty short and could easily be merged into the barefoot horses article, which covers the same basic topic. Better one comprehensive article than two iffy ones, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the tags so that the discussion link works. Also, this title - natural hoof care - seems the better one as a Googlefight indicates that it is the more common usage. Also, the focus of the topic is the care of domesticated horses. The topic barefoot horses might be confused with wild horses and so the scope of the article is clearer under this title. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal either way, but there is one BIG problem. Click on "what links here" for each article...the Barefoot horses article is much older and is linked far more. If a merge is done, someone will have to go in and fix all the double redirects. Not that the articles won't redirect, but the wiki gods don't like double redirects and they like us to clean them up. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I copied the above discussion to the barefoot horses article also, FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• A possible way of doing it would be for me to edit the older article, adding the content from this one - most of which is mine. This establishes my place in the edit history, which I care about. This article can then be reduced to a redirect by moving it to some other title such as Horse care without horseshoes. The older article can then be moved on top of this one, to take its title. The younger article, which has been moved aside, can then be turned into a redirect back here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm mildly confused. If you are saying keep barefoot horses as the main article and merge the content from this one into it (respecting what's already there), I am OK with that. We don't have to move this article again, we can just blank it and put a redirect to barefoot horses. I can do that part if you wish. How about we make a sandbox for your proposal here: Talk:Natural hoof care/sandbox. I will cut and paste the entire barefoot horses article into it, you can edit away, I can comment, and when we are happy, you can do a replacement of the text if you want the edit credit. Once its in, I can do the redirect on this one and other cleanup. Will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The end result of my proposal would be an article with the edit history of barefoot horses but with the title Natural hoof care. We should perhaps look for better titles first as neither seems ideal to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! We can get an admin to do that once the final version is determined. They have the tools to do that kind of history merge, while we mere mortals do not. I want to be careful about the "Natural hoof care" title because there is an equally compelling argument for "Barefoot horse movement." However, this could become a Trekkie versus Trekker argument, in that one term is viewed as derogatory by those who are part of the movement, yet is so common in the popular vernacular that the "proper" term is virtually unknown outside the group. I think what I would like to see is you take a look (or another look) at WP:V and WP:CITE about the need for verifible, neutral, third party sources. See what, say, the American Association of Equine Practitioners or some other group that is more or less outside the barefoot-versus-traditional care crowd calls it. Because this topic is very hotly debated amongst those who care, I want to be very careful with the tone, sourcing and neutrality of the article so that it doesn't get slammed as a soapbox or commercial spam. Looks like you have hung out on wiki long enough to know how that stuff goes... in the meantime, feel free to dive into the sandbox and start merging! Fortunately, article name changes can occur at any time. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged the articles. If we need admins to merge history, someone can always ask. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The history of the this article

I'm very interested about this article, since it has been my entry door to wiki. I couldn't imagine, at the beginning, what NPOV was; so, I couldn't imagine that to write a good article about so highly controversial topics is terribly difficult. In the meantime, I added contributions here and here to wiki into horses; now, I'm working into source proiects much more than on Pedia. NPOV is really a deep, hard trouble for me.

Nevertheless, while working in source, I found this: s:Horses and roads. It has been a BIG surprise. All what Barefoot movement says nowadays, is far from new; it was already known and tested in 19^th Century . Then, is has simply forgotten, so that Horses and roads sounds "new" to the mean horse owner and vet, just as it sounded "new", to 19° century reader. Absolutely it doesn't sounds new to any barefooter, since anything has beer de-discovered, and tested again, and confirmed.

Is seems like NPOV is nuch more a matter dealing with horseshoes... Barefoot people did the real, comparative experience of shod and unshod horses; most shod horses owners and "experts" speack about barefoot horse never did really this comparation. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 05:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really the issue. Both sides have legitimate arguments; horseshoes have been around for over 1000 years, after all. ;-) and so has the argument over the degree to which they are needed. Hence, the need for a balanced discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)