Talk:Horse/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some ideas

After a preliminary perusal of this article, I had a couple suggestions for small tweaks: in the into para, it says the economic role of the horse declined after mechanization... I'd love a phrase or sentence that says why (the horse was relied upon for many types of work and transportation) or something like that. Also, the section on Hot/Cold/Warm bloods does not mention pony breeds, which are cold-blooded. Also, the order of the sections seems disjointed, mostly relevant to time.... current, then historical, then current, then historical... could things like Evolution and Domestication be moved closer to the beginning of the article? I think they are more important than, say, ages. Just my two cents after a quick read. --AeronM (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I think this is a high priority for the WikiProject, but I don't think anyone is actively editing it much. As long as what sourcing there is doesn't get lost (I spent a bit of time getting source citations for some of the sentences and would hate to see that work lost) I figure that the article is very much in need of editing and help, especially reorganization. (Is this where I cheer you on like a cheerleader?) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Always could use a good cheerleader.... I will make some careful edits. Let me know if anything looks funky. --AeronM (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the horse care section down to sit before the riding methods article. This seemed to fit more logically to me. I think AeronM is right that the article seems a bit disjointed still. This edit is certainly not set in stone. If anyone has a strong opinion about it being the way it was, please revert. I also agree with AeronM about the evolution section.--Getwood (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. so maybe put the order as Evolution, Breeds, Biology, Behavior, Gaits, Horses within the Human ecomony (Perhaps rename to Horses and Humans?), Riding equipment, Horse care, Misc (maybe merge the common myths section in here?), Common myths, and then all the usual junk at the bottom. Does that sound workable to folks? I'm mainly thinking out loud here, so suggestions/comments/"hell no, you're off base!" etc are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see it go more like that. or even Evolution, Domestication, Breed Origins, Characteristics (color, size, etc.), and etc. Is "Biology" needed as we already have a section (and a main article) on anatomy, and horse Ages seems less like Biology and more like terminology, IMHO. --AeronM (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably need at least some biology stuff in the article, just to serve as stub paragraphs pointing to the bigger articles on anatomy, etc. A characterisitcs section with the age/color/size subsections to go with a biology section with anatomy and reproduction (and others?) might work. So we'd be looking at Evolution, Domestication, Breed origins, Characteristics, Anatomy, Gaits, Behavior, Horses and Humans, Equipment, Care, Misc?
This sounds good to me. I like the order and I like the 'Horses and humans' title. I also agree that we need to at least mention many of the topics, but I feel that there is still some bloat that could be cut. For example, the sleep section IMO should be a sentence or two. Similarly, the breed registry section and therapeutic riding sections seem too detailed to me for a page titled 'Horse'. And, to me, the 'riding methods and equipment' section maybe doesn't even need to be here at all except as links. I think that all of these topics should be on Wikipedia, but maybe not here.--Getwood (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with reorganization as you all have suggested, but am making a few tweaks on edits. Note with the biology section, which does need to stay in some form, that many, many new articles were spun out from it, so (I guess this includes the whole article) be careful to keep any "Main" links and wikilinks, we need to remember that this article is a gateway to, literally, hundreds of other articles. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cold Blooded Horses

Most (if not all) pony breeds are considered warm blooded. Pokies, however, were not used for 'draft' work in general because they were too fat, and their fatter cousin the draft horse was better-suited. Ponies did do farm work, but also pulled carts, and carried people (both kids and adults) around the countryside. --AeronM (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some fit the criteria (phlegmatic disposition, heavy hair coat, etc.) , others do not. Rather than reverting previous edits, you can work in something about ponies. I also tossed the bit about the origins of cold-bloods because it's already covered in the evolution section under the "four foundations theory" part. I am reworking the material to try and incorporate both views. Please edit further if you want, but please pay attention to the hard work that others have done and familiarize yourself with the entire article so you don't create redundant, or worse yet, contradictory material. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I smell trouble brewing. Let's figure this out before an edit war starts. I see a few issues here in dispute:
  • 1) Cold-blooded=stockier draft type vs. cold-blooded=origin in cold climates. I had learned it as the draft-type definition, but I have seen both definitions in use. I don't necessarily think they are mutually exclusive. While I think that the geographical terminology likely defined the core original breeds, with years of interbreeding this becomes messy. So many breeds have differing degrees of both types. For example, Warmbloods are not the only mixtures of European and Arabian blood. Wouldn't this strict definition mean that Quarter Horses would be a type of warmblood? My feeling is that we can say something like: "The hot-blooded/cold-blooded terminology originally related to the geographical origin of the breed, but now has come to refer to the overall character of the horse or pony."
Yes, I agree. I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, only pointing out that they are stockier and hairy-er due to their origins way back when, and yes, technically QHs are warmbloods. We used to joke around at the barn when we had a QH for sale and advertise it as an American Warmblood.  : ) --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 2) Ponies (most if not all) are cold-blooded because they originated in cold climates vs. some ponies are cold-blooded because they are draft-type. Again, I think we can finesse this without saying that one is right or wrong. I personally think that most ponies are draft-type, and so could be considered cold-blooded, with certain hot-blooded exceptions like the [Hackney pony]. Although, really, come to think of it, lots of ponies are more like little warmbloods...
Agree again... both are correct. I was only taking issue with montana's tossing the entire pony portion of the cold blood section. --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3) Ponies were not used for 'draft' work in general because they were too small. As I understand it, some pony breeds flourished at times because they were useful as draft horses in the mines. For example: "when the coal mining industry became extensively developed in Britain in the 1800’s, Shetlands were imported in great numbers to haul coal cars in the 'pits'." (From "Shetland Pony")
Yes, that's true.... again I was only concerned because montana's version made it sound like all ponies were draft animals, which is not correct. --AeronM (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents...--Getwood (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My main point was that not all - or even most - modern ponies are really cold-bloods any more (traditional Shetlands, yes, Some M&M breeds, yes). And no, not all ponies are draft animals. That was not what I said, I was (not entirely clearly) trying explain which kinds of ponies could be classed as coldbloods. I share Getwood's position on this. And heck, you are into Connemaras, so you know they have "hot" blood in them. (and they are lovely riding ponies, IMHO). My other point is that the "cold bloods originated in cold climates" statement is excessively simplistic, and redundant, particularly given that a more thorough explanation of the body types origins is in the evolution section (and indeed the draft prototype was the progenitor of both the draft horse and the shetland pony). THIS section is only be about temperament. Originally someone, sometime, had a section on temperament of different breeds that was a mess, and what I basically did was drag out the somewhat dated, but still useful, Marguerite Henry explanation of the different breeds as a way to clean it up. (No, I do not "own" this section, I am only explaining its history; I've had this article watchlisted for two years now)
So final point is that this is a subsection on horse behavior that addresses temperament, it is not am evolution or breed origins section (there are other sections on breed origin and horse evolution). Now, can this section and the whole article be cleaned up and things made clearer? Sure. No problem. But let's look at the whole thing before we Balkanize sections in a way that may contradict other sections. Keep it all in context. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I actually have to agree that by the old Marguerite Henry definition of "warmblood", QH's are indeed "warmbloods" (OMG, Aeron and I agree on something! LOL!)! Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah. Joe Hancock was the product of a Thoroughbred top side and a half Percheron bottom. And he's in the AQHA Hall of Fame! (grins) And there was one half Shetland mare that was bred to King P-234 and her descendants are still floating around. Arabians, Saddlebreds, Morgans, they are all there in the QH. Not that you hear QH folks talk about them much... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Just as an FYI, I'm going through and formatting all of the references with the same templates. If everyone could use the templates as they put in new citations, it would be wonderful! Please let me know if there is any problem with this. I'll also probably be working on referencing a lot of what's in here that doesn't already have citations, too. It looks like you all are getting a great start on making sure the article flows well and has the proper information in it...so just disregard my puttering unless I get in your way :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, all of the existing references should be properly formatted. If you see anything wrong, please feel free to tweak or let me know! I'm going to start working on referencing everything else now, but please don't take the fact that I referenced something to mean that I think it should or should not be in this article...feel free to add or remove whatever (based on consensus, of course)! Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Integration

Would it be allright with everyone if the "Miscellaneous" and "Common myths and terminology errors" sections were deleted and the information merged into other parts of the article where it fits? These two sections are small, with lots of one and two sentence paragraphs that have little or no relation to each other. What do you all think? Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the whole page could use some de-bloating...--Getwood (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. --AeronM (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, these two sections have been merged and deleted. Please feel free to move the information if you don't like where I put it...I just tried to get it in the most appropriate section, but I may have missed something. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Color section

I find the color section a bit confusing... especially the white/grey/albino (and let's not forget the blue-eyed cream) part. I don't know enough about colors to feel confident to work on this part, tho, so I'll leave it for someone more knowledgeable. --AeronM (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it. I will also update the UCD link (they rearranged their whole web site). I can work on the confusion. ("blue eyed cream" horses are, usually, cremello, by the way. Except when they have the champagne gene or the pearl gene %-P ) I would sincerely value comment here on what is not working, though as I've dove so far into the color genetics stuff I am not sure I can even talk about colors in plain English any more. (LOL) One problem was, like so much of this article, the color section is what is left after about 30 or so color articles have been spun off from it. (There is even a coat colors navigation template now that someone made for us!) So what should this summary contain, and what shall we just let people go to Equine coat colors for further reading? Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe say something along the lines of: "Horses come in colors x, y, and z, with lots of variations. Some breeds, such as the Appy/American Cream Draft Horse, have specific colors/color patterns associated with the breed. The genetics are very complicated. See article Equine coat color for more information." Only prettier :) We definitely shouldn't get into all the genetics here, as that's not really what most people want to read about and it takes too long! If someone could find some sort of a picture chart showing different coat colors it would be awesome...don't know if something like this actually exists, but it might be more useful to show people than try to explain what color cremello is :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm.. maybe a table like this:
color body color points (mane, tail, lower legs) eye color and other characteristics
cremello cream and/or white same as body eyes blue
bay red, from very light red to almost purple black

Is that what you're looking for? (Only more filled out?) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something more like a color wheel, to actually SHOW the color itself. Not a description of the color in text, but an actual box (or circle, or pie slice, or whatever) of the color. Hope this makes more sense, sorry I wasn't clearer before. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
PRoblem is that the colors can vary. Bay covers a WIDE range of reds, from almost sandy red to that deep purple red. You'd have to give a spectrum of colors and we're getting beyond MY coding abilities here. I like the idea though. Hm... do we know anyone who could do that sort of thing? (Our problem is that most horse people are a bit less adept at computers than most teenagers...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the chart above. Could we add that, plus some pics of the more common colors? Or would this be more suitable for the Colors article? --AeronM (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a chart like that is better suited in the colors article, but I can certainly try to work something like that up for it, if folks like. I based that above off a chart I made up when I was still teaching riding, to help folks see how to classify horses. It's based on Sponenburg's (sp?) book, but I'm sure I could use the UC davis site for the more up to date information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Dana boomer's coat color summary idea for this page. I do like the color wheel or chart for the Equine coat color page, though.Getwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't have Equine coat color watchlisted, I dropped a preliminary version over on the talk page for that article. Feel free to update it as needed, it's very rough. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I"m OK with what's in there for now. Also, on Equine coat color, I want to let everyone know that every single color listed in that article has a link to its own article (ScottAlter made a colors template for every article), and every color article has photos of that color if any can be found. Photos of every color in either this article or the coat color article will really clutter it up, IMHO. (Full disclosure: I have been the only person working consistently on the color articles for a very, very long time, so while I promise to try and really not take ownership on them, and god knows some need improving big time (I could only fix so many disasters), there is a logic to some of what was done there and I simply would like the opportunity to explain the underlying logic prior to drastic changes being made. That said, I CAN live with changes if they improve the article. (really, honest, I can, grin). Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag sprouting

I went ahead and tagged things that will need to be cited for GA, and especially FA. I can probably source a good chunk of these, I just have a lunch date and figured I'd tag first, and then source as I get the chance. I also think we can probably cut back the section on riding methods a bit, as it's more tangential to the actual horse itself. Not saying we should cut the section entirely, but it can be cut back some I would think, to be more the size of the horse care section. I'm still thinking the age section is a bit long, but can't figure out how to cut it back either, since there really isn't anywhere to put the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an article with 82k of info should definitely have more than 50-some citations. Thanks for the fact tags...I'm going to go through now and do some of the biology, horse care, etc. stuff as I just raided my mom's shelves of veterinary and horse physiology material... Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm home from lunch, but if you're working, I'll leave off finding refs and go play with Thoroughbred or a bishop instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about the no response. I got sidetracked :( I doubt I'll be working on it much today, so have fun! Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. It's finally dry enough here so I get to go help with pulling fence posts. So no work for me on wikipedia! Will possibly try tonight, depending on how tired I am after pulling fenceposts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The internal linked articles are, for the most part, at least somewhat sourced. I tucked in a source for the digestion section that verifies the vomiting thing. (Yes, I know I need a page number, am out of town, don't have the book with me) I know that the Thoroughbred article does or did have a source on the purebred/Thoroughbred thing, the horse anatomy articles have sources on various items there (or Getwood will have some sources!) and the Veterinary Owner's Handbook is a good general source for almost anything else in tha general area. Montanabw(talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked your citation for formatting and added the page number for the vomiting thing. Also did some more referencing on some of the other biology-type stuff. Will do more later, maybe :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation candidates

Would anyone object to removing the "Wild prototypes and modern species" section? The first sentence and main article link seem like they would be appropriate in the "Wild species surviving into modern times" section. Then the second senetnce and reference would not be needed.--Getwood (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)(from the Department of Redundancy Department)

I favor eliminating redundancy, as long as some basic reference to the four foundations theory stays. There is sort of a disconnect in how this article flows from evolution to the modern horse with a mention of living wild horses. Maybe merge them first and then we can cut the blatently redundant? There is spillover in a big taxonomy spat at Equidae and occasionally the evolution article too (this is why Horse gets neglected, a fix here exposes problems elsewhere and we get distracted). I guess what I am saying here is yes as long as we don't delete unique material. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I did the consolidation. No information was destroyed... :)Getwood (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Riding methods

Ealdgyth mentioned above that she thinks we should consolidate the riding methods section. To quote:

"I also think we can probably cut back the section on riding methods a bit, as it's more tangential to the actual horse itself. Not saying we should cut the section entirely, but it can be cut back some I would think, to be more the size of the horse care section."

I agree with her, but would like to get some other input before taking action. Thoughts?

What we may want to do is make a very simple, weasel-y paragraph about riding with a link to Equestrianism or (maybe) Equitation. By the way, one of the projects I have had on my back burner for over a year is some kind of riding article, different from Equestrianism, see my sandbox. The other problems is, as in horse grooming getting a "this is a wiki- book how-to" slapped on the article. But do I think some mention of horsemanship (and, of course, driving) is needed in the horse article? Yes. Maybe look at how we structure the "horses and humans" section. (scratches head...) Montanabw(talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a section on riding/usage in the horse article, but right now it's rather large: Maybe condense it down to :

Horses are usually ridden with a saddle on their backs to assist the rider with balance, and a bridle on their heads to assist the rider in maintaining control. However, many riders ride on occasion without a saddle and some horses can be trained to perform without a bridle or other headgear. From the time the horse was domesticated, a wide variety of riding methods or styles have developed, all of which balance the need to allow the horse freedom of movement in activities such as horse racing or show jumping and the need for security and comfort for the rider, precision of commands, and overall control. Activities such as dressage and reining require high levels of control, while horse racing or show jumping require that a horse have considerable freedom of movement. Worldwide, the most common modern riding style is referred to in the United States as English riding, which is a broad style that encompasses most Olympic Equestrian competition, and includes such specific styles as dressage, hunt seat, show jumping and saddle seat, among many others. Western riding is a popular style seen in North America, derived from the traditions of Spain, modified to fit the needs of cattle ranchers. A similar riding style is seen with the Stockman of Australia.

Which cuts out the "how-to" parts of the riding section. THis could be expanded somewhat, but I think we need to stay away from the nitty-gritty of how to ride in this article. Let's slap lots of "see also" things on it and leave it at that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done! Getwood (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it too, but can you add something on driving that can link to Driving (horse) also? Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikilinked it is... Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Dana, drop a note here when you're done and I'll try to find citations after you're finished. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done for the moment on the main article...I've got some questions on a few sections that I'll have up here on the talk page in a minute. Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


A small note, under the subject of gaits, on the fact that the islandic horse is also famous for the gait called 'pas' would be nice. - Ginlohfert 14:00, 18 June 2008 (DK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginlohfert (talk • contribs)

There is an entire section on Icelandic gaits, including the flying pace (if that's what you are talking about) in both the horse gait article and the ambling article. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More questions on consolidation/trimming

There are several more sections that I think could use trimming and merging - I've listed them below. Let me know what you all think...

  • External links section - are either of these two links really necessary? - Removed
  • Evolution section - Is there some way to combine the sections on wild species, feral horses, and other modern equids? These are all fairly short sections, and I don't think they should really be expanded.
  • Horses and Humans section - Products subsection - Would it be OK to transfer this into full sentence prose, rather than the bullet form it's in now? - Done
  • Horses and Humans section - Warfare subsection - This is a short section...could we combine it with something else, possible the work section?
  • Horses and Humans section - Assisted learning subsection - This section seems too long in relation to the rest of the article. Could we shorten it, and perhaps combine it with the work section? - Shortened, but could probably use even more trimming

OK, think that's it for now! *grin*

I think the external links can be cut, especially the breed one, as that is on the breeds article (or if it isn't, it should be there, not here). I'd think the section on "other modern equids" could go in the Equids/Equidae/whatever-its-named article, rather than here. The links to that might be best in the See also section? I think the wild and feral sections probably are best left as they are, though. Oh, always make things into prose when you can, rather than bulleted lists. If we want to go to FAC (which we should) lists are frowned on. Lists just make things look like a cobbled together list of trivia, at times. I can see both ways on the Warfare, combine it to a Work and Warfare section or leave it alone. I'm on the fence on this. Yeah, I agree the assisted learning subsection is rather large in relation to the other sections, especially in relation to the work section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've re-worked the products section to take out the bullets. I don't think we should completely take out the "other equids" section, as I think a lot of people who read this article are going to be going "but what about donkeys, and mules, and, and, and". Is there another section we could combine this with? I'm going to leave the rest of the stuff, probably overnight, to see if anyone else wants to chip in! Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, reading talk before reviewing article diffs, speaking in theory, I agree overall with NOT expanding things and cutting where logical (grin). I agree; the external links are pretty much worthless. (I tend to view an external links section as a "what we aren't able to write about or cite in the article but should, someday" section) I'll split the baby and say that the "other equids" needs enough to not have other folks come in with the "what about donkeys" thing (the "horse-centric bias" edit spat seems to come around the horse articles at least once a year or so...sigh...), but it can be short with lots of wikilinking to main articles equidae, mule, zebra, donkey etc. (I don't think mules are listed in the equidae article, as they are a hybrid, not a species, so may want to check that). Agree that the wikigods don't like lists, so they should be minimized, though they sometimes do have their place. I like leaving warfare separate from work as it is more history than not (horses in modern warfare are pretty minimal and explained in the warfare article). The assisted learning subsection is too long, but you should have seen it BEFORE I did one of my snarky cut-it-down-with-redirect edits <evil grin>. Feel free to cut it further, but note the wikilinks-- there are something like fouror five distinct types of therapeutic use of equines (one of which doesn't necessarily involve riding), all with their own articles, and they all don't get along with each other, heaven forbid anyone recommend a merge, (I did - ouch!) so just a heads up to watch the equal time thing if you can. I ducked an edit war there, but mostly because I didn't cut as mercilessly as I could have. (Montanabw does wuss out sometimes). I'm with Ealdgyth that the wild/foundations/evolution section can be left as is, there was some consolidation from elsewhere already. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I've removed the external links and done some trimming/consolidating on the assisted learning section. It could probably use some more work, but I think it's better now. There is already an equidae section like you describe, Montana; what I was wondering is if it could be combined with another section because it's so short, or if it should continue to stand on its own. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How about combining the 'Wild species surviving into modern times' with 'other modern equidae' into 'Modern wild equidae' or something like that?--Getwood (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. The problem is figuring out the taxonomy question. This is an article about horses, not other equidae, (Zebras, Onagers, etc. all have their own articles) so maybe the other solution would be to make a passing reference to Onagers and Zebras with a link to Equidae, tossing the rest? Play with it, see what happens? Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I favor that approach, as this is an article about horses. I can see having a wikilink or two to the other types, but we're a level down in the taxonomy scale here from other equidae. This is a species article, and the other equids branch off from the family. Did that make any sense? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other issues/concerns/quibbles/general all around queries

Okay, we have the names for mares/stallions/geldings at the top in the Age section and also in the reproduction section. I think we can cut it from the reproduction section, anyone object? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one, I cannot find a single reference to POAs being allowed to be over 14.2 hands. I think we may need to take that out of the size section, unless someone else can find something. I have it cited, but it only covers the Welsh Ponies, not the POAs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection to the cut in the reproduction section. For POA's, the official website here says that they're allowed to be between 46 and 56 inches, which translates to 11.2 to 14 hands. So, should probably take out anything that says they can be over 14.2 hands. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okies will do both while I'm down in the trenches, so to speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okies, Im done for the day. I can only do so much of this before my brain rebels. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I'm reading talk before the article, looks like I better review the horse/pony/height thing, particularly in light of content at pony, arrived at after a lot of consensus-building quite a while ago. (Sometimes having institutional memory sucks). Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We just took out references to POA, since their site says that they dont get over 14.2 hands. Nothing else got seriously tweaked. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I never missed its presence or absence! good call! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

My addition of the following link was reverted on the basis that it fails WP:EL under "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Puting it here as it might be useful.

-Dodo bird (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Feral Section

I have boldly added a mention about Chincoteague ponies. --AeronM (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference Question

What would everyone think of changing the book and articles citations in the references section from what they look like now to something like we did in the Thoroughbred article, with a notes section and a separate reference section? This would make the references easier to read, I think, and would make the section look less cluttered and repetitive. Let me know what you all think, and if we decide to switch them over now, I can start working on it now, rather than waiting until we have the entire article referenced. Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've become convinced that the system in the use in Thoroughbred is the only workable one for large articles with lots of references. Otherwise you get so many cite templates on the page that it bogs down, and also the footnotes sections get too hard to read. I'd offer to help switch over, but am hitting the road again tomorrow. I THINK this is the last big trip before July, I hope. I'm tired of traveling! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't oppose it, especially when we have multiple cites to the same source. You know I also hate doing the actual work on it... (LOL!). But I can do my best to at least not screw up what everyone else is doing! Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that separate note/reference sections are the best way to reference a big article like this. In fantasyland, I would love to see a Wikipedian referencing system that would allow multiple citations to the same reference and to different pages all on the same line. Maybe the page numbers would be listed numerically at the start of the line, with carets for each page reference that would link to the supported text. Maybe the text would have to be cited "1a" "1b" in order to direct to the reference and page. It might look something like:
1. ^^a p.17, ^b p.21-25, ^^^c p.34 Ensminger, M. E. (1990). Horses and Horsemanship: Animal Agricultural Series, Sixth Edition, Interstate Publishers. ISBN 0-8134-2883-1.
I haven't seen any pigs flying lately, so maybe we'd better stick with what actually works...  :) Getwood (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've started switching the references over. Due to the sheer number, this will probably take a bit of time, so the refs are going to look a bit messy for the next few days. Please feel free to chip in if you want! Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oink! I'm flapping as hard as I can! Oink! (You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Ponies?

Currently:

"Ponies of all breeds developed out of a dual need to create mounts suitable for children as well as for work in small places like mine shafts or in areas where there was insufficient forage to support larger draft animals."


Do not (some) pony breeds come from general riding horses used in ancient times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell_pony#Breed_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_pony#History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.24.103 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ALL pony breeds come from various wild prototypes that were adapted by selective breeding to human needs, some in the form of a landrace, others with more deliberate human intervention. You pretty much have to go to each breed article for details. Some breeds are older than others, some still have landrace characteristics, but tracking them to the dawn of time is pretty tough due to insufficient written records. However, the sentence in question probably could be tweaked a bit for clarity, we will look it over. Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-Introduction of Horse to the Americas

I came here to find out about the horse and it's appearance in the Americas. Only found out that they died out after last ice age. I'm not a horse person, but think the story of the re-introduction (by Europeans ?) back into the Americas and the adoption and transference to natives and associated cultural impact is an important story. Hopefully some history buff will know more than I do.

206.174.82.201 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Brad

It's worth considering. There is some mention of it in other articles, see Cowboy and (I think) Domestication of the horse for example. We need to be real careful how much info gets added to this general overview, but you make a good point that a brief history section may be worth doing. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Section Reference

The section Reference should be subdivided into several part according to the topic talk in the source.

I also wish to propose one more source :

220.135.4.212 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun fact A horse can move/jiggle 1 peice of its skin to get off a fly


please add IW link

[[wuu:马 (动物)]]
I think its the 25th Asian language.
Thanks !!


Did any so called 'horse experts' read through this?

"Hot bloods have a level of intelligence that allows them to be athletic, versatile (yes), and easily trainable (no/not always). They are bred for agility and speed (yes) and are generally considered spirited and bold. They tend to be thin-skinned, tall (?) and slim in build; more physically refined than the other types." - "easily trainable" ?? Alot of Thoughbreds are highly strung and would kick the living daylights out of you. - "tall" ?? most Flat race horses are around 15.2 to 16.0 hh and Arabs are not 16.3 hh !! - Does 'DeFilippis' know anything? Also Evolution should be at no.1 not at no.5 - "Most race horses in the developed world are Thoroughbreds, a breed which can reach speeds up to 40 mph/70 km/h." ?? the average race horse can run up to 40 mph but the better ones can run faster. 217.42.105.221 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We review individual edits and source to verifiable sources. We will look over that section and see if questionable material has been added. However, we also attempt to avoid POV edits (like "kick the living daylights") in either direction. Yes, horse experts do review this article. Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible subsection to add

Wondering if we should/could/want to add a subsection titled something like "Intelligence and learning" under the behavior section (or a new section by itself). I don't have the time to whip it up and source it now, but if this sounds like a cool idea, we can either sandbox it here or just start it in the article. For reference of myself or anyone else, here are a few good articles we could use as sources. Net stuff may be better than older books here, because recent studies have changed a lot of the conventional wisdom. Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Horses

this is wierd, how their is no Article about the Arabian Horses Dancing, it MUST be included... since it a very famous thing all over the Arab world...

Horses gallop necessary to pump and circulate blood.

Reading http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/080506-llm-horse-bones.html it states a horse must gallop in order to help circulate blood necessary for a horses survival, yet I see nothing of this in the wikipedia article, can someone with knowledge on the subject please see how much of this is true and add it to the article. -NeF (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you misread the article. A horse's hoof/foot is designed to have weight applied to it by moving (not just by galloping, but by moving/standing on it). All it's saying is that horses can't lie down for long periods of time. The complete details of horse hoof anatomy are in Horse hoof, where I believe they discuss this sort of thing (I don't generally edit anatomy articles, I'm squeamish!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Ealdgyth is correct. The frog of the horse's hoof has a critical circulatory function. The horse doesn't need to gallop, per se, but with every step, the frog assists the circulatory system by acting in a manner best described as a hydraulic force to help pump blood back up the leg to the body. A horse not allowed to be on its feet will develop both circulatory and breathing problems (this is part of the reason why broken legs are such a major thing; it isn't just healing the leg; it's healing the leg on a patient who also has to use it to some degree while healing!) It is kind of interesting, and, like the sleep section (which was added by popular request of people wondering about how horses sleep standing up) might be something we can consider adding when we have the time. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


locked??

I wanted to make a contribution to this articel but it has been locked- why is this??

I don't come on wikipedia very much but I thought the point was that everyone could contribute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinefionarichardson (talk • contribs) 10:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually only semi-protected, to prevent people without accounts that have not been signed up for four days coming by and working on it. While some folks who don't register for accounts offer wonderful additions, it's outweighed by the folks who don't. This is a high profile article, and very popular with school children who like to add information about their own horses or the horse that they know down the street, etc. Thus the semi protection. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
And if we didn't semi-protect it, we would have about a gazillion vandalism hits every day! (sighing...) Once you have a user name and it is 4 days old, you can edit this article. Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article tune up

Just creating this seection to sandbox the work that is going on here. FYI, I moved the history of competition new material up to "sport" partly because it fit better, but also restored old material because that "riding and driving" section is sort of a fledgling effort to talk about the most obvious things people do with horses, per some talk page request from a while back. Anyway, its primary intent is not to discuss competitive events, more to talk about style. I'm not explaining very well how this is different from "sport," but there's a difference in my brain that I will try to put on paper. If I can't get it to work, then maybe just taking the sourced first paragraph and moving it somewhere else, like maybe a new section on tack, may be a suitable end result. Dunno...

Also, IMHO, the whole horse-human interactions section may need a rearrangement of some sort. The individual sections are getting pretty well done, but the way they are put together and flow has bugged me for a long time. Not sure the solution, but I'm throwing it out there. Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wordsmithing is your and Dana's department. I'm in sourcing and information. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe when it goes up for GA, someone else will hit the nail on the head and help my brain figure out where to attack the problem. After I throw a fit at them, of course! LOL! I have a sandbox on my user page for a potential horse riding history sort of article that I kind of where I was originally going with all this thinking. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Source check

Okay:

Questionable sources:

Guiness Book of World Records may work as a substitute, anyone have a copy? Montanabw(talk) 06:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, don't happen to have one. Maybe my library does...I'll have to check when I'm in there next week, if no one's found it by then. The online version doesn't have it. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
For these other two, I would defend them as suitable, a niche publication is probably all there is on things like logging with horses. Montanabw(talk) 06:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, except that I found some books on modern day heavy-horse work at my local library, so I replaced them. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree it's iffy. But beware, we may need multiple sources, as some books say to start a horse at 3, in 4-H and QH land they say 2, Spanish Riding School and some other breeds say 4... Montanabw(talk) 06:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed a number of the cite webs to cite journals. When it's an online reprint of an article that appeared in print, we cite the print version, and just link to a convience link of the online version.
  • Any site that requires registration, should be so noted (example, The Horse, it requires registration)
But registration for The Horse is free. Does that matter? And it's an incredible resource. (And not all articles online appear in the magazine) Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying replace the horse cites, just that the citations need to note that the site requires registration. Some folks on the web are very anti-anything-requiring-registration and thus we note sources that require it so they don't have to get offended or something like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • #70 (five refs), 114 - We REALLY need to get rid of using Henry's All About Horses. First, it's aimed at children. Second, it's out of date. I know Montana has a love affair with the book (ducks and runs) but it's very very marginal as a source. It's like using a junior high school biology textbook as a reference for the New England Journal of Medicine... it's just... ouch.
Yeah, I know it's a kids book, *ducking* but it's *a* source, and in some areas more accurate than some more recent "Horse encyclopedia" type works, particularly some historical stuff. I mean, hey, Buzz Aldrin just wrote a kid's book about going to the moon. I'd consider it a credible source! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And frankly, on some of this stuff, it may be the best available source. I'm all for finding better sources, but just because a book was written for grown-ups doesn't automatically make it better researched or more thorough. Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's going to get hit at FAC, and hard. LOTS of people know Henry writes children's books. We CAN replace it, it's perfectly possible. (puts her foot down) (hey, since we're talking children's books, I'll start channeling my inner parent or something...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Can be cross-ref'd to Bennett, I can fix. Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem? It's a source on horses being used in the third world that appears to be in a major online horse publication. I think this can stay without a real problem, though certainly if the article was picked up by the New Your Times, it might go easier. Montanabw(talk) 06:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://gonewengland.about.com/od/nhsightseeing/a/aaclydesdales.htm About.com isn't considered reliable. Needs replacing - Replaced
  • #165 - http://www.fineartstore.com/Catalog/tabid/365/List/1/CategoryID/13595/Level/a/Default.aspx probably needs replacing, even if the link wasn't dead.
  • Given the size of our reference list, perhaps we should only list items in the References section if they are used more than once in the article. If it's an article/website that's only used once, just list the full bibliographical information in the footnote? So some of the new york times articles would be fully listed in the notes and could be removed from the references section. Same for any books.
    • What if we put all of the journal references back in the in-line cites, and left the books separated into notes and references like they currently are? My worry with having some full book references in the in-line cites, and others in the references section is that we'll get questions about consistency when we take this to GA and especially FA. If we put all of the journal articles back into the in-line cites, this would make the references list quite a bit shorter, anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That'd work too. If we use an article a LOT we can probably list it in the references section also. Just trying to cut it back some, we don't need to get quite as long as we got over on Horses in warfare. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I've moved all of the full journal refs back into the inline cites, so the references section has been shortened considerably. It's still a little long, but it's better... :) So far, there haven't been any articles that we used more than once, so it doesn't seem to be a big deal.
I'll let you guys sort it out. I'm still a fan of ref tags. (LOL!) (ducking, running...) Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We either need to always list place of publication or never list it in the References section.
Problem is that works are inconsistent...can't always find place of publication in some of the old books? Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In the older stuff, yes, we won't be able to list it, but World Cat is your friend, it helps a bunch. Anything with an ISBN will have place of publication available, it is part of the requirements. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I worked on this a bit today...think I got most of them. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs Needing Page Numbers: #49 - Barnett

Don't think that's mine, but will check if it looks familiar.
Nope, definitely NOT mine. It's a veterinary treatise or something. Ask Getwood??? I may have originally swiped the source wholesale via copy and paste from the horse eye article, I think. Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

#70 - Henry Fixed

OK Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

#76 - Bennett Fixed ::If that's Deb, I thought I got all of hers, will double check Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) #100 - Budiansky

I have Budiansky, will dig it out. Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise it's looking pretty good. There are some websites being used as refs that I'll try to find backup print sources for. This is probably our "biggest" article, it's the one that gets the most looksees so we need to do it up right. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added the ref numbers to the list. I know they probably won't stay the same, but at least they'll give me a general idea of where I should be looking for the link :) I've also added the refs needing page numbers that have been highlighted on the main page, for easy check-off here. Honestly, I think they're all Montana's...hint, hint *runs off to hide with Ealdgyth*. Hey, at least now we have a list to work from :) Thanks Ealdgyth! Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

History question

I understood that modern (meaning late 19th century) horses are considerably different than their predecessors. Arabs now dominate among race/riding horses. Work horses are "Belgian" or similar. My understanding was that work horses were so previously wimpy by comparison that people normally used oxen for heavy stuff. Use of horses wouldn't have occurred to them unless there was nothing else available. I'm sure the info is there someplace. Just couldn't locate it.Student7 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, that isn't quite accurate. You are partly correct that modern horses are healthier, longer-lived, and often (though not always) taller, fuller-bodied, and, in the case of some draft horses, stockier than they once were. (Just like people, sort of!) However, it is not accurate to say that work horses were "wimpy" in the past...the Belgian horse probably isn't significantly taller than it was 150 years ago, and probably only a bit heavier due to modern management. If you go back 1000 years, then you are partly correct that horses in general were somewhat smaller, but the draft horse breeds were still sturdy, muscular animals, not "wimpy". You can even go clear back to the pottery of Ancient Greece and find images of horses or mules hitched to plows. Oxen were powerful but SLOW. Horses could cover far more ground. It was technology that limited horse use more than their sheer size or strength. Why? Because horses can't pull efficiently with a yoke like Oxen wear; it chokes off their wind. The breastcollar wasn't much better and it still limited the size of a load that could be used. It took the invention of the horse collar, which reached Europe just over 1000 years ago, to bring horses into their full efficiency as pulling animals. After that, oxen still did some of the very heaviest work, but horses or draft mules were preferred (other than perhaps for things like breaking sod) because they could plow more acres each day and thus more land could be kept in production. Horses were also used extensively in warfare, and if you read articles like horse artillery, you will see that powerful but agile draft horses were critically important. Oh, and the Thoroughbred is the most dominant race horse today. Arabians are used as riding horses, but so are many other breeds, which breed is the dominant riding breed varies quite a bit from one nation to the next. You may enjoy a book, cited in the article, Chamberlin, J. Edward (2006). Horse: How the Horse Has Shaped Civilizations. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Did we mention racing quarters?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howlinghooves (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Size of neck and head

Discussion of horses and ponies describe the height up to the withers. Given a particular height, how much longer would the neck be, and how much larger, and higher above the ground would the head be? I'm sure there would be some variation, but it would be nice to have some idea. Thanks. 69.212.36.86 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)NotWillRobinson

Answer copied over from identical posting in another article:
Height is measured at the withers because that is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head and neck, which can move up and down. There is no real correlation to height and neck length in terms of proportionality, though of course ponies are generally smaller in all dimensions. While many pony breeds have draft horse proportions, i.e. relatively short necks set on low and big heads, other pony breeds have more riding horse-like proportions, and hence longer necks set on higher and finer heads. Some breeds, like the Shetland pony even have different branches within the same breed that differ dramatically in looks. The "Classic Shetland" is a little draft horse-looking creature, the "American Shetland" is very refined. Two ponies the same height could therefore have dramatic differences in neck length, angle at which the neck attaches to the body and so on... Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though all horses are measured from the ground to the withers, they vary in different sizes. Some horse breeds can be very tall and large, while others are very small.146.145.215.131 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


That helps, thanks again.

69.212.50.174 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)NotWillRobinson

Something left out?

Simple question, How fast can a horse run and how long can top speed maintained? How long can a horse run, at a reduced speed. I know there are "many" different breeds and sizes but a general idea would be appreciated.... How does this compare, to say a camel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.245.22 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We can look for some sources that provide comparisons and see if there is a place to add that nformation. (Probably at "Gaits") In the meantime, I have added some material on the speed of various gaits in the gait section, but the people who did the footnotes will need to double-check against their sources to see if these numbers match their source material (um, Dana...?) Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Nom?

I think that I'm ready to put this article up for GA, unless anyone has any huge objections. I've done some more work with the referencing today, and added a section on "Intelligence and learning". Feel free to check these over and tweak/completely re-write the new section if you wish. The article's not perfect, but for GA it doesn't need to be :) Let me know what you all think... Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me look at it later today? Just got home late last night from trailering and need to play catch up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with putting it up, no matter what we fix, someone will find something else we never even thought of, so I say go for it once Ealdgyth signs off. We can fuss with it until we are blue in the face, I say go for it. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at it tonight after Dana has a chance to finish up (Heading out for a while, then have some work I need to do so won't get to it much before 8 or 9 eastern time tonight) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm done...I just removed a fact tag that was already completed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I think there are still a few sources that might be bettered for FAC, but all in all it's probably ready for a run at FAC. I went through and fixed all the redirects, there are just two in there (Harness horse and Hippotherapy). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put it up for GA then, and see what happens! Good luck to us :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a GAR, with a comparison to Domestic sheep, which is an FA. And I suggest that since Dana nominated the article, she deal with the issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Back story: Dana boomer nominated the article (GAN), I reviewed it, and Ealdgyth's suggestion comes after my review. Ealdgyth is referring to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Relevant to this GAN, a GAR can be used to discuss if the GAN was inappropriately failed, or if the explanation for failure was inadequate. So, before proceeding, please decide which of these two situations apply. I can give more explanation, if requested; that does not require a GAR. --Una Smith (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I am also very much in favor of a GAR. First of all, thank you Ealdgyth for the comparison to the Sheep FA, as this shows that domesticated animals with strong human ties do not (should not?) have to follow the same taxonomic article structure as animals with little human interaction. Second, the reviewing editor is one who is known to have engaged in several very public and fairly nasty spats with one of the main editors of this article - which really should have prevented her from reviewing this article on the grounds of COI. There are plenty of other GA reviewers...including ones who review the biology articles...she did not need to jump on this article less than a day after it was nominated.
That said, however, I will have limited Internet access through Sunday evening. I realize that I placed the article up for review, but since the backlog is so large, I thought it would be at least Monday before someone picked it up, and that a quick fail wouldn't be an issue. Therefore, I will probably not be putting the article up for GAR until Sunday evening at the earliest, and probably Monday morning. If someone else wants to do it before then, please be my guest, as I feel that this was an extremely unfair and somewhat suspicious quick fail. As I have said, I will be back online Sunday evening, and will wade into this issue then. Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be also gone all tomorrow, so Monday will probably be best. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Perhaps overly bold, but I removed the last paragraph of the lead. It was so generally written that is doesn't say anything, plus the bit about needing special care has no source in the article. Narayanese (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph is a summary of the last two sections of the article, so something of the sort needs to remain. I've re-added the paragraph, but will do some copyediting. Stuff in the lead is supposed to be generally written, and I disagree that it didn't say anything. Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
And per wiki MOS, the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, which may not be copperplate prose, but it's what wiki MOS tells us to do, so we do it-- the best we can, anyway! (smile). Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Music

The following was submitted by Redsolidarch:

Some ignorant person tagged it as "vandalism". I am sure there have been studies. Anyone feel like creating a section on this topic? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! The only study I know of showed that horses in a

barn with a radio on were less anxious when music was played than when talk radio was played! Can't say I blame them, (grin) but I also have to say that the topic is of insufficient import to be in this particular article. However, if you can find sources and footnotes for any studies that would fit under WP:V, feel free to come back to the talk page here and give us the cites and we will take a look at them. Montanabw[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]] 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I once did a research project in high school studying the effects of music on horses moods. My little Welsh Cob Mare is very particular about her enviornment as she is very touchy when anything is out of place. We usually only hear soft country in the background noise while we ride and I never pay much attention. But instead I decided to change it to pop punk music. At first her ears pricked up and kind of stopped near the area of the arena where the radio was and then she took off. But once we started jumping I could notice a difference as she picked up her feet higher and was more energetic. I kept trying this over and over with different music and she continued to get better which I started playing my iPod while I was riding. I feel that she enjoyed it much better as we went on trail rides and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawbery58 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Horse/Archive_4"