From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Barefoot was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 8, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
July 15, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Poorly written article[edit]

This article is generally poorly written and needs serious attention from an editor. The problems include: rambling sentences that stray off topic, overly-verbose choice of terminology, a lack of sources, a tendency to promote barefootedness as a virtue, and major issues with worldview (the article seems to have been written almost exclusively from a US perspective). Just one example: there are several sentences and even a photograph relating to one particular guy in some US city who was apparently known locally for going barefoot. This has no place in an article focusing on a global topic stretching back thousands of years.

I had a bit of a crack at tidying it up, but there's too much work to be done here and I suspect that this is one article that is prone to edit-warring.

Good luck to whoever takes on the challenge! Preceding unsigned

The Summary especially needs attention; the majority of it is about imprisonment! Carinya (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This article contains a lot of unreferenced material that, in tone, may have come from some kind of school paper. It needs many more citations to validate statements such as, "Contrary to popular assumption the state of poverty has never been an actual reason for unwantedly (sic) having to go barefoot in any civilized culture, as simple forms of footwear could freely be handmade with disposable materials throughout all ages and in all surroundings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Barefoot being natural[edit]

I think the inclusion of "Being barefoot is a human's natural state" is a problem, as it seems to be POV advocacy of going barefoot, as well as being unsourced. I suspect that the only sources that could be cited for the statement are ones that advocate people going barefoot much more often than they usually do. I think the statement is the equivalent of saying, "being illiterate is a human's natural state," or, "being naked is a human's natural state". Shoes may be as old as clothing, and certainly have been part of human culture longer than reading, so why would wearing shoes be "unnatural", which is what saying "being barefoot is a human's natural state" implies. -- Donald Albury 12:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not POV to say that being barefoot is natural, as I stated in my edit summary "we are not born with shoes". I think a better wording is to replace natural with normal. This makes more sense. Shoes are "normal" in almost every society in the world with few exceptions.--Dmol (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think to avoid further controversy, this statement can be removed completely. Both sides of the debate would agree that it is common sense humans are born without shoes, and yet it is not the norm to be unshod, thus why even put this in the article? ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My point is that it seems to me that the only people who say "going barefoot is natural" are people who are advocating that people go barefoot more often. That makes the statement POV. -- Donald Albury 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Being barefoot is a human's natural state" is not POV! It does nothing to encourage being barefoot, it's merely an accurate description of what being barefoot is. Furthermore statements such as "being illiterate is a human's natural state," or, "being naked is a human's natural state" are exactly the same. It's unsourced because it's ridiculous to require a source! No one would bother to add one, because anyone who doesn't simply oppose the statement, and thus wouldn't want to support it by giving a citation, doesn't want to denigrate it, by doing something that involves tacit agreement, that it needs a citation (which is supported by the fact that four separate people have removed the "citation needed"-tag, while only one person puts it back). Suggesting that footwear may be as old as clothing, is completely irrelevant. Wearing shoes IS unnatural. As is wearing clothes ...and using computers (and editing wikipedia). You are preforming an appeal to nature, which you should know to be fallacious. Shoes are normal (depending on the society), but not natural.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The idea that "Being barefoot is a human's natural state" is added as advocacy for going barefoot, is especially ludicrous, when you look at the rest of the sentence: "though for functional, fashion, and social reasons footwear is generally worn." (thus stating shoe-wearing as normal, speaking of the mentions above, of "normal"). Discussing a bit of text, while ignoring the context, isn't particularly constructive, IMO.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Donald isn't saying that people are born with shoes. He's simply reading "natural" to mean "normal", "acceptable", "comfortable", etc., all of which are valid synonyms. This is a valid reading, even though that's not Zarlan's reading (nor likely the intent of whoever put it in). Hence I suggest removing the phrase to avoid argument. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Zarlan, I challenge you to cite a reliable source that says going barefoot is the natural state for humans. I suspect that the only sources you will find saying that will be sources advocating that people go barefoot. Wikipedia should not be pushing the agenda that wearing shoes is unnatural. -- Donald Albury 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Neither "normal", "acceptable" or "comfortable" are, in any way, valid synonyms for "natural". There is no way in which natural means, or implies, those qualities. "Normal" and "acceptable" is especially untrue, given that the full sentence is (with italics added here, for emphasis): "Being barefoot is a human's natural state, though for functional, fashion, and social reasons footwear is generally worn.". As to there being no sources, aside from pro-barfoot ones..., ... It's a bit tricky to google, but ask anyone who is active in the debate, and they'll no doubt find many a source. Also, ask any biologist och physician, if being barefoot is our natural state, and they will say yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talkcontribs) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Zarlan just got several in my new edits, particularly the Nature one. I have heavily cited my research and hope it is acceptable, please do not just blindly revert because you don't like it. Shoes are not natural, they are a man-made item that does not occur in nature and is so-far unique to humanity. A better word for what Zarlan means is that going barefoot is 'innate', which it certainly and very provably is - it is as innate as going bare-handed. Hadashi (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Your edits were reverted because there were far too many spelling and grammatical errors, they didn't agree with wiki formatting, and they were added to an improper and unnecessary section, not the section where they belonged. See below. WTF? (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words?[edit]

I note this sentence from the intro paragraph contains unscientific weasel words: "Many people do not wear footwear in their home and some expect visitors to do the same." Is there any evidence to quantify the Many and Some? Is it known if there is an increasing/decreasing trend for barefooting in the home? Mandolamus (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In many European countries, it is the norm to take off ones shoes/sandals when going in to a home. Socks may be kept on if one wants to, and one may wear indoor slippers (if you have one at home, or the host has them for guests), so it is inaccurate to call it barefoot. In the Nordic countries at least, doing otherwise is completely foreign to us. In Japan, and many other East-Asian countries I believe, it is one of their most strict customs. A Japanese person may forgive some mistakes of a foreigner, be lenient and/or laid back with some things or simply not be that bothered to obey tradition, but shoes in the house will generally still be a big no-no. In the US, it's a bit mixed and kinda depends on the area. I'm not as sure about the rest of the world, but it seems that Africa and Asia is mostly, if not completely, "no shoe"-zones. As for sources... Etiquette_in_Japan#Visiting_someone.27s_house --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've travelled to 75 countries and I'm not aware of ANY places outside of North America and some parts of Africa in which it is considered to be acceptable to wear shoes inside a house. Certainly in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Asia it is unusual to wear shoes inside. However, in Korea and Japan, light slippers are usually worn.

Going barefoot[edit]

I just removed the following section from the article, which really contains multiple information on multiple topics, most of which should have been added elsewhere and not in a section entitled 'going barefoot'. For starters, citations should be inserted immediately following punctuation with no space between the citation and the punctuation. They DO NOT go before the punctuation, period, end of statement.

Secondly, several citations and new information was inserted into the lead section. This is also improper. The lead should be a summary. Cited material should go into individual sections. Some citations are acceptable, if necessary, but not nearly the quantity of material that was just added there.

Most of the material belongs under the 'health implications' section, and not in a new section, as it primarily deals with medical issues. I removed them outright because there are NUMEROUS spelling and grammatical errors, and several citations which cannot be verified. WTF? (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are few risks and many benefits associated with going barefoot[1]. While footwear provides some protection from cuts, abrasions, and bruises, from objects on the ground, as well as protection from frostbite, shoes are known to cause permanent damage the feet and either greatly limit their flexibility, often completely immobilising them and preventing proper biomecahnical movement. They also put them at greater risk of sprains, planater warts, athlete's foot, and many other conditions. People who have never worn shoes almost always have toes that are splayed outwards and which distribute weight evenly and can grip like fingers, whereas people who have worn shoes for even a few months during childhood or longer during adulthood have toes that are forced inwards and moulded to the interior shape of the shoe[2]. People who have worn shoes often have toes that are twisted so that the nail points outward horizontally, this is most often seen in the fourth and fifth toes, although it can also occur in some degree in the others, particularly the big toe. Wearing shoes is known to result in toes that point inwards, a condition seen in only Pointed shoes, particularly high-heels, cause extreme pressure on the big toe, forcing it inwards and often resulting in bunions and 'fallen arches' (note that this is a different condition to 'flat feet', which are benign in habitually barefoot people)[3].
During his study of feet in China and India that had never worn shoes, Dr Samuel Shulman discovered that of the 9.01% that had any notable foot condition only 0.89% of the people studied had foot complaints which could be linked to walking barefoot (including temporary conditions such as abrasions) or having the tops of the feet uncovered. Almost all of the feet recorded in the study were described as in 'perfect' health and being completely free from the large number of conditions known to be caused by shoes, such as corns and bunions. Shullman concluded that "Footgear is the greatest enemy of the human foot." [4].
While citing a study is acceptable, it's generally considered improper to mention the name of the researcher in the article itself, unless they are very well known. In this case, it's completely unacceptable to mention Dr. Shulman's name here, as it can be seen as advertising his work, which is against Wikipedia's policies. The person that added this also needs to figure out whether Shulman is spelled with one l or two. WTF? (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Walking barefoot results in a more natural gait, with the most natural belonging to those who have never worn them. People who walk barefoot tend to land with the forefoot or mid-foot, which eliminates the hard heel strike and generates much less collision force in the foot and lower leg.
No citation provided here. Though this is largely covered in other areas. WTF? (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Many stores, restaurants, and other public venues in the United States have dress codes against bare feet. While private business owners are free to set their own policies, many also cite nonexistent health regulations, though these typically are requirements that pertain to employees, not customers. Many people also believe that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle barefoot, though there are no laws in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other places against it.
There are many sports which people play barefoot, including running, water skiing, beach volleyball, gymnastics, and martial arts. In modern language, someone who prefers to not wear shoes in public is known as a barefooter. The term may also be used to describe someone participating in certain sports, such as barefoot skiing or barefoot running.[5][6]
These last two paragraphs have nothing to do with the preceding paragraphs, and were copied rather sloppily from the lead section, and should have stayed there. They are largely backing up information in later sections under sports and laws. Although the citations backing up the "barefooter" term are acceptable here because the term is notable and there's not really a better place to put it in a main section.
I normally don't like to delete such material en masse like this, but this was very sloppily added, and added to unnecessary and improper sections. Furthermore, many of the "citations" appear to violate WP:COI. WTF? (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove cited material in favor of uncited material in order to support your own views. It is perfectly allowable to mention someone who conducted a study, it is a method used all over Wiki and in academic essays. However I will edit the article again to reduce references to the name. Your objections are invalid since you could easily have fixed any spelling and grammatical errors or POV yourself by adding other material and altering what is there rather than blindly reverting. The fact that you did so, and that you are crying POV without first assuming Good Faith makes your own actions look POV. I cited everything I said. Also, there was only a couple of the mestakes - hardly 'NUMEROUS spelling errors'. The grammar seems fine, but you may change it if you wish, that is what the edit button is for. Hadashi (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Four spelling errors just in your comments alone. Fail!
I reverted you again because of too many citations in the lead paragraph. The lead section is supposed to be a summary, and NOT for the introduction of new material. In my experience, editors that insert too much new material in the lead are generally POV pushing, since they're trying to get their point across earlier in the article to insure that it is read. This is unacceptable. You should review WP:LEAD before continuing further.
I am also seriously concerned that much of Shulman's work is "published" in the so-called "Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists", a supposed "journal" which does not have a currently active website, and of which the material in it cannot be verified. For example, this citation is not in standard journal formatting, is posted on an unclear domain (, and could easily be a bogus site. This FAILS WP:RS completely. It's also over 60 years old, so more current research would be favored. It should also be pointed out that there are a lot of completely bogus journals in China that "publish" either bogus studies, or republish copyrighted works, and these also FAIL WP:RS. For these reasons, anything that is added to this article by Shulman or any of his associates should be deleted swiftly and without prejudice. WTF? (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't do this, you are plainly resorting to semantics in order to push your point, I have no interest in what you are pulling. Your personal preference has nothing to do with the way wiki is run and I would like you to please speak to me in a civil manor, stop acting like you own the page and reverting all my edits, and to please show me the rule saying you can't cite things in the first section. Please?
You are removing large amounts of cited material without any conversation over what seems to be a very small and semantic point. As you seem to be trying to force the article to remain as it is I will re-instate the edits to the Health section (which you did not complain about in your last post) and start re-writing the intro without citations. I will continue to include Shullman's reaserch, but without the URLs you detest. I am trying to compromise with you here, but you are acting as though your word were law. The age of the study is not relevant and, in any case, I have provided newer studies to back it up. Studies of this type are hard to come by, but they are far more valid than most of the other citations I found in the article.
As this has gone on far enough and we are getting nowhere I will launch a moderator query. I would point out that your prejudice here is showing and you have plainly not read any of the related information since, if you had, you would know that the Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists is an entirely valid source and that that article wasn't published by China. Hadashi (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one pushing a point? Ha! LOL! That's a good one! Please stop. You're approaching vandalism at this point. WP:WIKILAWYERING by threatening a "moderator query", whatever the hell that is, is not an acceptable solution here. WTF? (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you please speak to me nicely and try to resolve this? I am just trying to edit this article and include relevant and important information. If you have a problem with this information you should discuss it with me before reverting. As for a moderation query, I will post the information on your talk page. My lead-in may have needed a bit of editing, but WP:LEAD contains two citations in its lead-in and specifically says you should cite as appropriate. Hadashi (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I've already explained the two citations in the lead that are currently there. Your edits to the lead violated WP:NPOV by inserting too much information which was "challenged or likely to be challenged", and I called you out on it. Once again, please read WP:LEAD again. It does not explicitly ban citations in the lead, but it does discourage them, as the lead is supposed to be a summary, summarizing the information presented in the article itself. WTF? (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Please could you explain to me, point by point, what your problem is with what I wrote? Without making fun of my spelling. I had no idea that there was anything there which was "challenged or likely to be challenged", this is hardly a political issue and you could have critiqued and then we could have sorted this out. The ONLY reason I asked for a resolution was because you kept 'nuking' the page. If it was just the Shullman citations you could have removed them and left the rest or explained the issue and gotten me to remove them. Hadashi (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If you read the edit summaries I just made, I think I've already outlined the specific problems that I've fixed. Also, I've removed all of the Shulman quack citations, since they were invalid. WTF? (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks! Might I offer myself as a neutral party/observer who knows nothing about barefooting? Could I possibly impose on each of you to take a step back and not make any edits for, let's say, an hour? I have been watching the two of you for that long (During my vandal patrolling), and I think it might help. Certainly an hour away from wikipedia would not be as wasteful as this last hour? Even if only one of you does this, I will appreciate it. You can always come back and start right back up again. Could I intrigue one or both of you to try this? --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
0k, I took myself away from this for a few days. WTF, you seem to be confusing 'fix' with 'delete everything', that section I wrote would work fine with just the Zipfel citations and you had no reason to keep deleting it wholesale when you could have easily changed it with little effort. I can understand your confusion over The National Association of Chiropodists since they changed their name before the internet came around, these days they call themselves the American Podiatric Medical Association. I will set up a redirect to prevent further confusion on this matter. If you live in America, simply go to your nearest major library and ask for the appropriate Journal, you should be able to read the research for yourself although they probably only have it on microfilm. If they do not have it, then here is a list of libraries that do. I have already emailed two of these library and confirmed that they have the paper on microfilm. I have an American friend who made a copy and sent it to me, so I have read the research in full. Shullman is a valid source. Hadashi (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, here is the history page of their website confirming it Hadashi (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Discalced merger[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing discussion. No consensus to merge, and in fact, opposition to merging. WTF? (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a very short. poorly-cited and mostly plagiarized article, discalced. I say, "mostly plagiarized" loosely, as virtually all of the content comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is now in public domain (so it's not really a copyright violation). Still, I would think that the best solution here is to merge the contents of this into the religious section of this article, with the proper citations included, and redirect the old article to this one. The only other significant content of that article is a mere definition of "discalced", which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion because it is not a dictionary. WTF? (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE. I can understand your logic. It would seem, however, that the definition of barefoot does not include discalced. Granted, the discalced article could use some work. It'll never be a long article as it's very short subject matter. There's more content than should be rolled into the the Wikitionary entry so I think each article stays as is. If other editors can agree to merge it in, I could live with that. Chris troutman (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wilker, Dr Simon J. (1961). Take Off Your Shoes and Walk. 
  2. ^ Hoffmann, Phil. (1905). "Conclusions Drawn From a Comparative Study of Barefoot and Shoe-Wearing Peoples". The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. Retrieved 24 October 2012. 
  3. ^ Howell, Phd, Dr Daniel (2010). The Barefoot Book. Hunter House. 
  4. ^ Shulman, Pod.D,, Samuel B. (1949). "Survey in China and India of Feet That Have Never Worn Shoes". The Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  5. ^ Scarpa, R; Dorner, T. (1988). Barefoot water skiing: an illustrated guide to learning and mastering the sport. World Publications, Incorporated. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-944406-01-4. 
  6. ^ Wallack, R.M. (2009). Run for Life: The Anti-Aging, Anti-Injury, Super-Fitness Plan to Keep You Running to 100. Sky Horse Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-60239-344-8.  External link in |publisher= (help)
QuentinUK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
OPPOSE. There is a long-standing historical confusion between the terms "barefoot" and "discalced", especially in the context of the cultural practices of Christian religious congregations. "Discalced" means "without shoes", and includes the wearing of sandals or heel-less slippers. Some of the "discalced" congregations of consecrated religious prohibited their members from going barefoot. So, the terms are not synonymous. Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keep the hookworms warm? (Health implications section)[edit]

There is a whole paragraph about hookworms. The last sentence, about keeping feet warm using shoes, seems completely unrelated. Should it be in a different paragraph?

Also, is it "hookworm" or "Hookworm"? The hookworm article itself is inconsistent right now, too, but I'm not sure which it should be...?

(Another maybe minor thing: there is some writing about "natural gait" both at the beginning and end of a paragraph which seems a little redundant, but I'm not sure...) - ZeniffMartineau (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be "hookworm", no capital, as it is not a proper noun (like a name or a title) but just a noun like "dog", describing an animal. I agree about the frostbite comment, it should be made into it's own paragraph about frostbite and feet. Dried cherry (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Middle Age New World?[edit]

During the Middle Ages, both men and women wore pattens, commonly seen as the predecessor of the modern high-heeled shoe,[6] while the poor and lower classes in Europe, as well as slaves in the New World, were barefoot.[4]

This sentence is historically confusing. By the time the Slave Trade in the Americas was happening, the "Middle Ages" were over. Very little European-American contact happened during the period that is considered the Middle Ages, and it could be argued that slaves in "The Old World" were frequently enforced barefoot, as well. I feel we would do better by simply excising the phrase "in the New World" (which is it's own imperialist can of worms) so that the sentence would read:

During the Middle Ages, both men and women wore pattens, commonly seen as the predecessor of the modern high-heeled shoe,[6] while the poor and lower classes in Europe, as well as slaves, were barefoot.[4]

But I am unsure of the citation, if it should be left intact or if the text (notably: Not a Historical Document) makes specific inclusion of that phrase. The resulting sentence makes more historical sense, but I was never much good with citations! Dried cherry (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the offending phrase. There was already verbiage in the lede about slaves not wearing shoes. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to the wording in the "Imprisonment and slavery" section[edit]

The current wording is overly verbose and pedantic. To counteract this and improve readability, I propose the "caveman" version of that paragraph:

"Many place don't let bad people have shoe. In old time, slave not have shoe either. Other people have shoe. So it make people without shoe stand out. It also make them more likely get hurt by drop rock. Or step on rock. It make for more shame too."


But it really should be changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed "caveman" version is worse than merely being overly verbose and pedantic ...and it contains falsehoods.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Bare feet are allowed in public parks in New York City[edit]

This is an irrelevant statement, isn't it? To the best of my knowledge bare feet are also allowed in any public place in NYC, so the fact that bare feet are allowed in public parks is far from remarkable. In addition, such statement may lead to confusion. (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Barefoot populations[edit]

I've noticed that there are no specific references of past or present populations in which barefoot lifestyle is common or predominant, or information about the different regional prevalence of barefoot lifestyle in the world. (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, talk do you have any information you could add? Some information re Australia, NZ, UK has been addedAusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Charity campaigns[edit]

Is this an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


To Northeastern Nomad: This article has enough images already. I'm sure you like File:Feet in central park.JPG since you uploaded it, but I don't think it adds anything to the article and frankly, this looks like a vanity edit to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Biased article[edit]

It's clear most of this article was written by barefooters and food fetish. I have researched this topic in great detail and find little reliable evidence that a person that goes barefoot will have healthier feet that someone that wears proper well fitting shoes. It also lacks sources that any side effects of wearing shoes will diminish a persons quality of life. Meaning a slightly bent toe will cause any pain. Furthermore it leads a reader to believe that food ailments such as falling arches are only caused by wearing shoes.

This article also downplays the risk associated with going barefoot. One part that really stuck out was about Hook-Worms. " its spread cannot be stopped by most standard shoes since the larvae can penetrate fabric and small holes" In reality the risk of Hook-Worm infection is greatly reduced by wearing a closed-toe shoe. Also "The Hookworm parasite is relatively mild, has few symptoms, and can pass completely unnoticed when the infestation level is low enough. Since the hookworm infection is very cheap and easy to treat......" Again they are downplaying the risk. Also the pro-barefoot sources tend to be none medical site, news articles or junk science sites that are not part of the medical community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassman21 (talkcontribs) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Footwear for horses[edit]

There are shoes for horses and similar animals, varying on the circumstances. Some specialised boots are also in use by horses, e.g. here:

Horse modeling four different types of brushing boots

--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Barefoot. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Barefoot. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 08:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)