User talk:Montanabw

Archives
Archive 2006 Archive 2007 Archive 3 User:Montanabw/Sandbox

If people want to talk to me here, do so:

I sometimes archive and delete old stuff.

Henry Babson

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Babson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Hi! Been a while since I dropped in to see you...Hope things are going well. I've successfully moved, although I'm still waiting for all my stuff to arrive by ship, so I feel I'm camping a bit (and missing my books). Anyway...I noticed you added "though in actual combat, a well-trained war horse was largely controlled by the rider's legs" to the Barding section on warfare. I'd got the impression from my reading that the armed rider couldn't control the horse with their legs, due to their own armour, the high war saddle and the stirrup position (see some photos of saddles and position at http://ilaria.veltri.tripod.com/tack.html), and this is why they used such vicious spurs and bits. Would this make sense, or do you reckon they'd get enough control anyway? Just wondering... Gwinva 04:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi G, welcome back!

Well, if knights could walk or fight in armor, they could use riding aids, perhaps not terribly subtle ones, but definitely they could give leg commands. You can't ride if you can't move--you'd fall off the horse as soon as it moved faster than a walk! Obviously they had control with legs, because legs give the "go fast" commands. Horses are sensitive to weight and pressure, thus a heavily armored rider would actually have a tremendously obvious use of weight-- If you turn your head on a well-trained horse, that is enough shift of your weight to cue them to begin a turn. After riding for 40 years, I am still being reminded that if I look down while riding I will throw my horse onto the forehand, so if 10 pounds of human skull moving six inches affects a horse, 250 pounds of armored rider most certainly does! As for the phrasing in the article, you can sure tweak it if you want, as "legs" in the broader sense does include "legs with really obnoxious spurs." I kind of wonder (just me speculating) if the obnoxious spurs weren't in part a result of needing something to get through the barding??

Now, the images you use as examples aren't all that extreme, many western riders today have a similar "backward" seat, the leg aids may not be terribly subtle and far from the riding aids of classical dressage, but one-handed neck reining can only accomplish so much too (and many medieval bits were even more horrendous than the spurs). Bottom line is that a horse had to be pertty quick to respond to very little rein cue, and be trained to work off of legs and seat (the classical masters insisted upon it) whatever weapon they used, there would inevitably be times when they'd have to drop the reins and use both hands for something, so a horse would have to be trained to respond to legs and weight shifts.

Now, there are also modern examples we can look at. For example, riders in the Arabian horse competition called "Mounted Native Costume" (more like "Hollywood costume," but I digress) have to control a horse through several layers of heavy fabric, usually lined with felt or vinyl. If it isn't the modern equivalent of basic barding, I don't know what is! (Here is an example: http://www.arabiancostumecreations.com/ ) I know from having ridden in this type of competition myself, you can control a well-trained horse just fine with simply a little stronger leg aid (basically squeezing with the calves), you don't even need to add spurs. And they usually ride some of the most high-spirited horses in these classes because they are all about flash and drama, a horse with high action places higher-- but they still have to behave. Now, if I rode a horse into combat with leather barding or something, I'd definitely add spurs to be on the safe side, but they definitely can feel your leg close against their sides through even heavy fabric. You couldn't put metal armor UNDER the rider's legs, as just sitting on the horse would make plate armor irritate the horse so bad they'd probably buck rather than be of any use in the battlefield.

Ok, so now I wrote another book. Welcome back to the fray! And yeah, things coming by ship take at least half of forever. Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes sense. It gives me a better understanding. I think there's a lot of nonsense talked about knights in battle; common sense tells you that if you're riding a horse into battle (where your life is at risk) you'll want as much mobilty as you can and as much control of the horse. The really solid saddles, where the armour and reinforcing extended down to protect the legs, were used for jousting rather than war, I think. Fully encasing plate armour (for knight) which covered all the leg was used for foot combat in tourneys, ratherthan mounted. Back/inner leg of war knight probably free of much plate. Yes..I've heard the long spurs were to get through the barding, also, but perhaps some of it is a fashion statement, too (?). I've often wondered how practical barding was in battle... Reins were held in shield hand: shield strapped to arm, reins gripped in hand, so arm position dictated by defence, rather than control of horse. I think horses were probably trained in the charge and did a lot of it themselves (stories of horses who've lost their rider joing in the charges anyway), although the rider would dictate things more in the melee. Alright for the wealthy knight with a well-trained horse, but I wonder how many poor men-at-arms cursed their cheap horses...!

On a separate note, I've been reading a bit lately about the Napoleonic wars (culminating, of course, in Waterloo). Cavalry, light or heavy, was tremendous against infantry arraigned in line or column, no matter what guns they had. Only way to survive against cavalry was to form square, using bayonets in the way the medieval soldier used pikes. Reading it again, it confirmed in my own mind my ideas about the transition away from mounted knight. It was certainly not caused by the invention of gunpowder (even nineteenth century guns weren't effective against charging horsemen). Range of a musket was too small, and reloading too slow. Horsemen on to them too quickly. I'm convinced heavy cavalry were responsible for their own destruction: ie. too good, too hard to defend against, pitched battles didn't occur much. Skirmishing, ambushes etc much more common. Way of fighting changed...Pitched field battles only came back in 18th/19th C, with trained infantry, but cavalry remained essential. Speculation, anyway... Gwinva 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you followed my illiterate garble above: I was in a hurry and just threw my thoughts down. Yes, I wonder if we’ve discovered something that’ll turn traditional interpretations of history on their head (!!!)…what a shame Wikipedia does not allow original research. (It's just that some of the stuff I see trotted out again and again in histories doesn't make sense to my layman's mind. Perhaps I'm missing something). Fascinating thoughts about the Bedouins and American Indians…not history I’m particularly familiar with, but interesting to see smilar things enacted in different contexts.

Conventional thought holds that the downfall of the mounted, armoured knight came about due to the use of longbows and the invention of gunpowder. For the first, certainly, the example of the Battle of Crecy is regularly brought out (and the English have always used it as proganda to scare the rest of their enemies). But while the longbow was significant, the French loss is more complicated than that...after all, battles don’t come down to ‘my weapon is better than yours’… the terrain, training, morale, tactics, supply train, sleep-patterns, idiot officers etc etc etc will all impact on a victory. Panic is the main cause of death in a battle: witness the collapse of the Scots cavalry at the Battle of Falkirk. I mentioned Crecy, as that article itself claims the arrow pierced the armour of the knights, but that no longer stacks up...research at the Royal Armouries shows that arrows couldn’t penetrate mail easily, and certainly not plate. Short of shooting into the un-armoured face, or other parts of bare flesh, the archer had to be extremely skilled to get it through armour chinks. Poorer men-at-arms without full armour were also at risk. Basically, armour was exceedingly good protection, even the early mail, (witness modern butchers who still use mail gauntlets) and the arrow head, bodkin or otherwise, was never made of hardened steel (how could any army afford thousands of them?) Soft iron will bend in impacts against hardened steel. (see Talk:Bodkin point). Unarmoured infantry, moving slowly, are a target for arrows, and a mounted soldier is exposing his horse as an easy target. But place the men on flat ground (at Crecy the French were clambering through a bog and up a hill…who do you think is going to win, arrows or no arrows?), with heavy horses able to travel at speed, then I wouldn’t want to be an archer, unless they were present in overwhelming numbers, and able to fire off enough arrows in the charging time…be worth sitting down & doing the maths: (ie. fire rate per archer, number of archers needed to impact on line of cavalry travelling at x speed through the ‘target zone’). But of course, horses can outflank, break a line. (And such warfare would encourage full armour, not sound its death knell, I would have thought). Anyway, armoured knights surrendered at Crecy and were murdered afterwards (not died under the arrows). It's just that most of the army weren't armed knights, but poorly-armoured soldiers.

That said, it’s amazing the longbow was ever ditched in favour of muskets. Arrows could be shot at tremendous speed, had a long range and, in the hands of an expert, were extremely accurate. A musket had a short range (even in the early nineteenth century it was not effective beyond 100 yds), appalling accuracy, and was slow to load. Admittedly, a man could be trained to fire a musket in an hour, allowing the use of untrained men (compared with a longbow, where a man needed to be trained from his youth), but realistically, how much good is an untrained man with a musket? Line them all up, facing another force of infantry or cavalry, and they’re not going to stand. One shot, then they’ll be dead, or have run away (unless, of course, their opposition is as untrained). A constant problem for the Spanish and Portuguese during the Peninsula War). It took much training for musketmen in the British army to fight well with muskets: learning speed (needs continual practice with live ammunition, something no other army did) and, as importantly, positioning: forming line, turning, wheeling, forming square etc etc without breaking formation. As soon as formation is broken, any advantage is lost. Skirmishers were highly trained, and were most effective once the rifled barrel was invented. So where am I getting at? Basically, what is there in the above to terrifying a mounted knight? He has speed, protection and superior height. For most of his charge, he’s beyond the reach of fire power. It was combined forces warfare which really advanced the pitched battle: send your cavalry in, the opposition forms an impenetrable square. So use your cannon or infantry to break the square, enemy forms line, and you’re able to use your cavalry again quickly. Again, look at Battle of Falkirk, where the English won by panicking the Scots cavalry, forcing the infantry to form schiltrons (by threatening with a cavalry charge), which were eventually destroyed by arrows (equivalent of a Napoleonic carronade).

OK, another belief is that armour stopped being used with the advent of gunpowder; but if you are charging at a line, and one shot might get you, would you give your armour up? No…because after that one shot you’re going to be hitting the line of men in traditional close combat, when you do want your armour, especially if (as you say) the armour doesn’t impede your control of the horse. I guess speed might have something to do with it, but over the short distances, would weight of armoured knight effect the speed of the charge enough to counteract the effect of a solid armoured line?

No, armour just got too expensive. Especially since the fashions of war had changed years earlier, knights regularly dismounting to fight in the 14th century, not because the mounted knight was ineffective, but because it was so effective (especially when combined as above) no enemy would stand on a field. Better to nullify the shock troops by seeking ground impassible for heavy chivalry. Witness the French knights having to fight on foot at Crecy. Skirmishing, chevauchees and other light cavalry was more important.

The infantryman’s only defence (other than better choice of ground) was a schiltron or the excellent bayonet squares of the Napoleonic wars where the cavalry forced to swerve away from impenetrable points, and run obliquely down the side of the square, where they remain in range for too long to be safe. But when a square is broken, cavalry have immediate advantage. (and these formations are basically defensive unless you have extremely well-trained troops and a genius commanding, as at the Battle of Bannockburn.

As for guns changing the way cavalry themselves fought, I’m not sure…the sabre or sword was the cavalryman’s main weapon, his pistol having a short range, accuracy no doubt impeded by the movement of the horse (and then how do you reload?).

Cannon against horses: again, compare with the Napoleonic wars…cannon great on infantry square or column (men massed together make an easy target) but against line of infantry or line of cavalry…you’re only going to pick off two or three with each shot (if you’re lucky). Then time to reload… Not much chance against men advancing in numbers. The rapid fire Gatling gun was needed to make much impact.

OK, so when did the armoured knight become obsolete? Not as early as historians claim. I would have liked to see a troop of them at Waterloo… Certainly at that stage the heavy cavalry (a wonderful resource for both sides) still wore some armour (like a lightly armed man-at-arms, probably). Would they have worn full plate if they’d had it? I wonder!!

Ah, but now I've rambled on far too long and your page has turned into an essay. Sorry! I'll stop now. Gwinva 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling down to add this message, I realised just how much I rambled on last time...seemed to cover a lot, but I'm not sure where it all went. Yes, I think you're right in your analysis of economic and social changes affecting the status of the knight. Feudal society was breaking down by the thirteenth century, soldiers (and knights) expected to be paid for war service (rather than the old feudal due), armies became increasingly professional. The inventions of the nineteenth century, as you say, rendered traditional cavalry obsolete (although they were used a little in WWI). No, I've no qualifications relevant to the discussion, so my thoughts/conclusions might be totally ill-founded! Anyway, I've enabled email, if you're interested in pursuing the discussion. Gwinva 04:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK - Easy keeper

On 3 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Easy keeper, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Khemo's up

Khemosabi is up, finally. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You rock, man!  :) Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And for your pleasure - Indraff as well as some bit source citations. Gotta do something while I wait to see how my gelding does at Nationals... working cowhorse semi-finals are Saturday afternoon, and I may just go bonkers waiting to see if he makes the cut. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and did you get any pictures? Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of any dude ranches, at least not anything that didn't look just like any other ranch on the face of the planet. Have the one grab shot of the trail ride in the distance, which I'll eventually get cleaned up enough to use. Just might end up selling it as a stock photo instead of giving it for free to Wikipedia. Taking photos of people requires model releases to use their likeness for anything but personal use, so getting pictures of people I don't know trail riding is a pain in the behind, since you have to ask them for model releases, etc etc. For that matter, you have to have a property release for any property that is 'idenitifable and unique', at least to be safe. Being a photographer isn't all that much fun from a legal standpoint at times! On the other hand, the lastest farm shoot finally ordered their prints, so I know what photos are culls from that shoot, so I can now use some of those on Wikipedia! Just have to ... get them up (ducks). But now, it's time for bed, been a long day, had the farrier out for the gelding that's here with me, and he managed to find something to cut his foot on in the pasture ... how the heck do they do that? So I smell of ointment and hoof fillings. Blech. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a heads up when you add 'em. As for photos, it is indeed always tougher to be a pro than an amateur in that respect. Luckily there is an exception for people who are participants at public events, is there not? Also, I wonder how the issue is handled when people on Flickr post photos with a release under cc-2.0 or public domain? Luckily most of what I take is snapshot quality at best and wiki is the ONLY place that would take my stuff! (grins) Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The public events exception is purely for journalistic usage, and doesn't cover any other use, like advertising or such-like. Some of the stuff on Wikipedia would cover that, but some wouldn't. Big crowd shots are also an exception, as long as the shot is still a 'crowd' shot, and you don't isolate someone out from the crowd. As far as Flickr, there is a case from last month where a camp counselor put up shots of some campers on Flickr under cc-2.0 and one photo was used by one of the cell phone companies in a world-wide ad. The camper is now suing the company (not the photographer, which I find odd, but whatever) for using their likeness without permission. Pretty clearly, the photographer didn't have the right to release the photograph under cc2.0, but we'll see what happens when this hits the courts. Do you need more photos? Weather for outside shots will be decent here for a few days, and I can get to the studio too, so let me know what you might need, and I can attempt to take it if I have it. Have to go to the feed store tomorrow anyway, stupid gelding used up the last of my Corona oinment....Ealdgyth | Talk 04:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that wikipedia has some specific info on that around here someplace. As for photos...hmmm. Look in horse care and stable vices. Maybe you will get some ideas. Also barn and stable are both pretty lightweight articles that could use some help. Horse blanket is off to an OK start, but a horse in a big heavy winter blanket would be a good addition (the Budweiser Clydesdales are not my preferred image there, but they were the only regular-blanket blanketed horses I could find free on the web). Maybe check out the assorted saddle, bridle, bit (horse) and other horse tack articles. Halter (horse show), maybe, oh lordy there are Sooooo many articles! Oh yes and Horse harness. I would almost KILL for a diagram of the parts of a harness, if you REALLY have time on your hands... hmmm, if you can fin a twisted-wire snaffle anywhere, there is no image of that in bit or [[bit mouthpiece] (Eventer started a TON of articles). I wish there were better images in longeing and martingale. Oh heck, I'll just stop now! Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, poopy. Gelding didn't make the cut. (sighs) That's the last try on working cowhorse for me, he likes the cows, but it's just a moneypit for little return. I adore the guy I have him with, and all that, but to keep a gelding in that sort of training you gotta have a passion for the sport, and I just don't. So home he comes and we'll have fun trail riding on him! Anyway, that means more time to devote to pictures tomorrow, since I won't be worrying about the horse. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To Montanabw

I know you have admitted being a bit snappy and so on and now it is my turn to admit being overly sensitive and here is my apology for that and for what I did afterwards. Montanabw I know you do a lot of much needed good quality work here and I will try to do the same. I have been, over the few months that I have been a user, reading over the guidelines etc. and now reckon I can do a better job, and will work on my sensitivity. You did a pretty accurate diagnosis in saying that I was a child, unfortunately I am not which makes my past actions unacceptable but I certainly acted like one. Looking back over everything written I realise that this 'war' is useless and that I have acted badly so I have realised, on my part anyway, that it must finish. This has been a learning experience and I am truly sorry that it was you that I felt hard done by first because this won’t happen again. There you go I hope this is an OK apology, surprised you didn't I? Now I hope we can move on from this with no hard feelings because we seem to be interested in the same things and will probably be working on the same things in the future. I give you my Australian hand to shake in peace…

This is a copy so I know you'll get it, the other is on my talk page, keep it here for a while if you want. It might make you feel better. Once more... I am sorry, this has gone on long enough. Bananas'n'Cream 05:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you. I apologize for being pissy and irritable and am grateful that you were able to step back first. Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is so nice! Thank you both for working this out and apologizing. To seal the deal:

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I hereby award the Barnstar of Peace to Montanabw, Bananas'n'Cream and M'lady ArielGold for their fine efforts in this matter! May it be a lasting peace! Dreadstar † 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you for the barnstar...it's great! I love those things...;) Dreadstar † 06:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tersk

I have no idea, which is why I left that particular entry alone, but a quick search of Russian sources returns Tersky Horse Breeding Plant #169 in the settlement of Novotersk, Mineralovodsky District, Stavropol Krai. Many other links I found point to the same place (here is even a picture of the place). Does that help? I can do a more thorough search if this is not sufficient; just let me know what kind of additional information you are looking for. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your changes

Montanabw, I have been thinking about making changes to the Domestication of the Horse page for many years. Having finished a book, I now have a little time. Thanks for your wordsmithing, no offense taken. Although I read the tutorial, I am still uncertain about how to do certain things, such as insert a parenthetical private explanation for a rewrite--although the tutorial did say that it was bad etiquette not to do so. This might make me seem clumsy or abrupt, but this is my first attempt at changing a Wiki entry. I am not even certain that this is the proper way to respond to you.

gohs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohs (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

revisions continued

1.You said "you can't cite your own stuff here."According to Wikipedia rules, I can, I just have to maintain a neutral POV and keep in the 3rd person:

Citing oneself Policy shortcut: WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

2.You also said that "tooting your horn too much about your own credentials is sort of frowned upon"--I was presenting my credentials, not bragging about them. In most venues where strangers meet to work together on a job that requires authoritative knowledge, presenting credentials is a non-threatening way to let the other people know that you're qualified. Particularly in this electronic world where I'm not sure we're even supposed to know our co-editors' real names. I meant to reassure, not to offend.

3.While I have a pretty thick skin, "defies all biological sense" and "full of shit" are editorial comments that, even if not directed specifically at me, are designed to exclude and insult rather than help. Some of the explanations you have given for your edits in the sections ahead, that I have not yet worked on, seem to me to be unsourced personal opinions that are contradicted by published data. For example, you insisted that there must have been wild horses in the lowland Near East because the 4-Foundations breed theory requires it--that doesn't change the fact that there are no horse bones or pictures of horses from the lowland Near East dated before the Akkadian period, or about 2300 BC, with the exception of a disputed find in Israel. If you're going to say that wild horses did live in the lowland Near East before they were imported from the Anatolian and Iranian uplands about 2300 BC, show me the evidence. I haven't seen it. Also I don't see how my citation of the Blackfeet magpie story is "loopy" , "offensive", or "likely to start an editing war". It makes the point that what WE regard as control over breeding might be different from what OTHER CULTURES regarded as control over breeding. John C. Ewers's 1955 classic study of horsekeeping among the Blackfeet is not "outdated"; it is regarded as the deepest and most thorough study of horsekeeping among Plains Indians ever published, and the fact that the field work was done in the early 1940s meant that he spoke with people who personally remembered their grandfathers talking about the old days. Shorter but equally informative classic monographs by Frank Secoy (1953) and Bernard Mishkin (1940) are even older. I have never found a comparable book-length analysis or detailed ethnography of horsekeeping in the old days among the Comanche or the Nez Perces, although, as you say, they were better riders and had more horses. But it's unreasonable to arbitrarly demand that references to Plains Indians horsekeeping cite Comanche or Nez Perces customs rather than Blackfeet, particularly when the Blackfeet source material is richer. This page REALLY needs changing. I'm volunteering. I don't object to heavy edits, but I want the facts to be straight. Let's be civil and reasonable and considerate.

The Tarpan was up on view as an invalid taxon for less than a day. I changed it myself. Its validity has been questioned since at least 1912, but the majority opinion accepts the Tarpan, so I'm happy to put it back in.

Gohs 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for snarky editing comments, but don't take them too personally. I just get crabby, and the stuff that gets the most snarkiness is unsourced speculation that, sourced or otherwise, is just plain incorrect. However, please don't blank material you don't like, just add a "fact" tag to things you question (my edits or anyone else's) and I will see if they can be sourced. I see no reason to argue or have "expertise duels," when the real point is if we can find valid, third-party information. I would have no way of knowing if something is yours, as, after all, we stay anonymous. That was just a heads up about not promoting your own theories in most cases (yes, there are exceptions, but Wiki says to be very careful about it). For example, did you see the one about the guy who did his own research and thinks horses were domesticated over 10,000 years ago? That was the last edit war I had over there. (sigh) There really ARE some theories that are pretty much unsupportable.

Please understand that just because someone interviewed people with direct memories doesn't mean that they didn't slap their ethnic and cultural bias on top of it, especially in the 40s and 50s! And anyway, that whole magpie thing was irrelevant as to domestication anyway. I just happen live just a few hours from the Blackfeet reservation, I DO know a little bit about what folks up there tend to view as offensive, and it is important to be cognizant of living people's legitimate concerns. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodeo roughstock

Thank you for your kind comment. I hate to see things poorly described, apparently by people who have never seen wet paint on a bull, and appreciate the efforts of the Wikipedians to get good information out. There's still stuff I can't resolve in a correct manner. Patroo 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

editing the archaeology

Montanabw,Thanks for your reply. I'll check out the footnotes format section in Wikipedia. What I have done now is to mark up the existing article on Domestication of the Horse : Archaeology and related topics with and . You will be able to see that , at least for the Archaeology article, the best solution would be a re-write. I'm working on one. My time window is beginning to close, though, and this is a big job with no payoff for me except public service. I intend to finish the Archaeology article, but it's hard work to shrink it down when I'm so deeply into the minutiae. I will trust you to make it shorter. I'm keeping occasional sentences and phrases from the existing article and adding lots of new stuff around them, so it's not total replacement, but it will be close to that.

Gohs 17:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Witez II

On 28 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Witez II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos, again and other stuff

Dropped some bit photos up on Commons, as well as some old photos from a 1906 or so textbook on agriculture. Still hunting for a harness diagram. Plan to hit the stable (not literally) later and get pictures of my wooly mammoth in his winter blankie. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem on the Arabian stuff. It was sourced statements, so it was pretty easy to just revert the change. Easiest thing to do is to not make a big deal about it, sometimes people are just looking for a rise. I'm in a good mood today, have TWO horses at home! the cowhorse is home for a year, he came off the hauler's trailer like a champ, happy as a clam and settled down to his new stall. I'm sure he's now out pestering the other horses in the pasture, trying to convince them they are cows, and not horses. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bask (grins) and thanks for American Paint Horse Association I should get to it within the week, going to be busy with some stuff until Sunday, I think. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC) You know, i have no idea how I got that pedigree wrong (grins). It's correct in my books, it's correct in All Breed, and somehow I flubbed it. I always get tripped up by Polish names, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanded American Paint Horse Association and added some to Working cow horse. Threw some citations at Bosal. We're off to Indiana tomorrow and Friday. Try to keep the horse articles standing! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

new text for the archaeology of domestication

I want to give you a heads up that I'm about to load a large new body of text into the archaeology of domestication section. It's about six times longer than the current section. I've worked on it off and on for 3 weeks. I'm concerned that it might be considered too long, but it's about as as short as I can make it and still cover the ground. It's a complicated and multi-armed octopus of a subject.

Gohs 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Horses

I'll see what I can find regarding references; my monologue on the subject must have been inspired by something. Secondly, on the domestication front, my knowledge of ancient cultures is fairly general, so I can't offer much there. See you, Gwinva 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts. I think it's not a simple arguement (Does it call for a page on economics of armies and their composition and development? Is there one already?!). There's lots of economic factors involved. Yes, the cost of armour is high. Does that stop you wearing it? Let's look at who did wear it: the knights and nobles. Early on, under feudalism, they provided the bulk of the army. They owned land, bought their armour and horses from the proceeds, and did their 40 days duty. But feudalism expired, and by the 13th C it was much more retainer-style: the king paid his nobles to attend the campaign. I was reading something the other day about the pay received by the army at Agincourt: the knights were paid more than the archers and men-at-arms, but not comparatively more. The cost of their campaign (in terms of armour and horses) exceeded that wage, and approached their annual income. As the army switches to much more mercenaries and paid armies, rather than those that own land, then men will be equiping themselves with what they could afford. Meanwhile, armour's getting more sophiticated: not the one-size fits all mail hauberk, or even the odd piece of shaped plate, but fully articulated made-to-measure, perfectly sized harness. Even fewer knights can afford those. Landed nobles are liking their pleasant peaceful life (with the odd sporting tournament) and don't want to turn up to battle, and thus send other men in their stead. Armies are increasingly being trained (not individually, but as a unit), another thing the rich are not keen on! So, knights are great but they're becoming increasingly unavailable, plus even if you get them the enemy sit on a hill or in a swamp so they're no good anyway. Hey, it's not just the cost of armour, but the horses too...and if you've just spent a fortune on it, do you want to risk it in battle? Anyway, as I said, I'll start investigating some of those threads and see what I can come up with. Gwinva 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when you google for references and find your own Wikipedia stuff (even quoted on sword and armour forums). Even worse when it brings up one's own speculation on talk pages... (Which is how I got here). Gwinva 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to write my own article and find some journal to publish it! I can find references for heaps of statements (including some which are wrong), but to tie them all together in one conclusion might be stretching OR. I've been through some really good stuff though, including a fascinating chapter denying a modern military revolution (saying its more of an evolution) but impossible to summarise in a sentence! (Specialists tend to get a bit carried away by lengthy analysis). However, all is not lost. My best reference is from a generalist work rather than a specialist, who has done the summary for us. Hooray! (even if it dismisses armour as "increasingly cumbersome"). Here's the quote:

"By the end of the 15th century, knighthood was being transformed by major changes. The rising cost of equiping and maintaining oneself as a knight limited the number of individuals who undertook its rigorous training. Pillaging and booty became inadequate as a reimbursement, and the practice of scutage, in which vassals were levied a tax in lieu of military service to finance specific campaigns, drained resources. Those that did become knights increasingly expected to be paid. Knighthood underwent a professionalism that resulted in a more disciplined, consisitent service...Once contracts for military services came into existence, knighthood underwent a democratisation, since the greatest leaders no longer necessarily came from the nobility."(Robards, Brooks; The Medieval Knight at War, UK: Tiger Books, 1997, ISBN 1855019191, p 152

So, construct a sentence from that and add in something to the effect that "by the sixteenth century the concept of a combined-arms professional army (with improved infantry tactics) first developed by the Swiss had spread throughout Europe" (Carey, Brian Todd; Allfree, Joshua B; Cairns, John. Warfare in the Medieval World, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2006, ISBN 1844153398 pp 200-2). Of course also put something to the effect that it wasn't a decrease in the concept of heavy cavalry (still used to effect in the Napoleonic wars) but the knight himself was lost (that's what scutage is about: send money or other men to battle rather than go yourself). I've got references (somewhere) for the fact that it's not long bow or gunpowder that did them in, if you want. Does that cover your suggested sentence? Gwinva 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, just been a bit busy. I'll put something together and get back to you. Gwinva (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's see what we can do with this. Longbows:

• rise of the English longbowmen during hundred years war led to increase in and sophistication of plate armour; full harness worn by beginning 15thC. (Carey et al, 149-50)[ie. longbows didn't signal the end of the heavily armoured knight, but the beginning: plate was developed because it was effective]
• there is, apparently, research published by the Royal Armouries which shows the arrows can't penetrate plate, but I can't access it without paying an expensive subscription. Mentioned on sword forums, but we can't cite those. sigh.
• of course, what we can't deny is that arrows did kill horses, so knights often dismounted against archers (but that wasn't essential against other infantry, and, to be frank, only the English had decent numbers of archers, and when they fought each other (eg wars of the Roses) the archers cancelled each other out and they were back to slogging it out in the old ways

Guns:

• early firearms revolutionised siege warfare but made little impact on the field (Carey et al p 194)
• trials of 15thC handguns show they were hard to fire; failed to penetrate 2mm steel plate at 30 yards! However, 16th C aquebus could penetrate 6mm plate at 30 yds. [but see below]. ( Edwards, JC; "What Earthly Reason? The replacement of the longbow by handguns." Medieval History Magazine Is. 7, March 2004) [I'll try and find a reference for thickness of good armour]
• 19th C musket: in orderly trial accuracy at 100 yds: 40-75% (depending on make); at 200 yds: 25-37% (Bull, Stephen; An Historical Guide to Arms and Armour, London: studio Editions, 1991, p 131, ISBN 1851707239 [how fast will a charging horse cover those dangerous 100 yds?]
• 19Th C: musket: in battle, effective only at 50-100yds, when fired in volley (not individually) (Bluth, p 23)
• 19th C musket: rate of fire 3-5/min (Bluth p 35)

Continued use of heavy cavalry:

• Napoleonic wars: Infantry were vulnerable to cavalry; only safety was in forming square, which relied on firm discipline and tight formation to maintain wall of bayonets [note blade held them off so they could fire; musket not sufficient on their own]; slightest break in formation and men at mercy of cavalry. Heavy cavalry, such as French cuirassers, wore steel helmets and breastplates. (Bluth, BJ; Marching with Sharpe, p 127, UK: HarperCollins, p 2001, ISBN 9780004145372)

general notes: Not having any decent Napoleonic references at home (excepting my son's children's books, which probably can't be cited on Wikipedia, even when they're written by a leading expert), I've checked the local libraries. The Bluth book's great (if generalist), shame the title makes it sound a bit dodgy: no doubt named to raise sales amongst Sharpe fans. Still, I'm a bit of a Sharpe fan myself, along with Hornblower and other Boy's Own stuff.

(later). Other than the general comment that each piece of plate differed in thickness (within itself, also), I can't find any specific measurements. But I do have the following:

• full harness of 17th c musket-proof armour weighed 70 lb, less than 16th C tournament armour (p 104, Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and his Horse, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA:Dufour Editions, 1998 ISBN 082312977)
• records show that from (at least) 14th C armour was 'proved' before sale, and stamped to show it could resist handweapons (eg axe and sword) and missiles from short range (longbow and crossbow bolts, and later aquebus and pistol). (p 75, Embleton, Gerry; Medieval Militray Costume, UK:Crowood Press, 2000, ISBN 1861263716)
• plate armour first developed to resist crossbow bolts; in 14th C most of the large plate is made of hardened steel. (pp 51-2) infantry were the first to abandon armour; their mass-produced cheap armour was not greatly effective; however, quality armour was increasingly being improved to resist threat from firearms. (p 54) (Williams, Alan; "the Metallurgy of Medieval Arms and Armour" in Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, ed by Nicolle, David; UK: Boydell Press, 2002, ISBN0851158722)

so, there are the elements. I think we can make a paragraph or two from that. I'll have a think about how to word it. Gwinva (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph

Ugh! Hate it when that happens. I've just spent half an hour constructing a paragraph from all that, only to delete it rather than save it!! Have to start again. How tedious. It was a rather long paragraph, too...perhaps too long and detailed. We could put it in the knight page or something, and summarise and link it on the horse pages. Anyway, feel free to muck about with it and change word order, grammar etc.

The reason behind the decline of the armoured knight have been a source for much debate, and are likely to be due to a number of contributing factors. However, it is unlikely that developing tecnology rendered them obsolete; instead, it contributed to their development. Plate armour was first developed to resist crossbow bolts of the early medieval period; the rise of the English longbowmen during the Hundred Years’ War led to the increase in and sophistication of plate armour; culminating in the full harness worn by beginning 15thC. Quality plate was chosen by wealthy knights for its effectiveness; records show that from at least the 14th century armour was 'proved' before sale, and stamped to show it could resist handweapons and missiles (from crossbow and longbow and, later aquebus and pistol), fired at close range. By the 14th C most plate was made from hardened steel and quality armour was increasingly being improved to resist threat from firearms. This did not render the plate increasingly impracticable; a full harness of musket-proof plate from the 17th century weighed 70 lb, significantly less than 16th C tournament armour.

While infantry abandoned their cheap mass-produced armour in the late 16th C , good armour continued to be worn by horsemen. Even in the Napoleonic wars many hevay cavalry divisions, including the French cuirassers, wore steel helmets and breastplates.

Early firearms revolutionised siege warfare but made little impact on the field. Modern trials using 15thC handguns demonstrate that they were hard to fire and were unable to penetrate 2mm steel plate at 30 yards. Firearms improved over the centuries, but by the early nineteenth century muskets at an accuracy of 40-75% (depending on make) at 100 yds; at 200 yds it was only 25-37%. In battle they were effective at 50-100yds when fired in volley. Loading was slow, producing a musket fire rate of between three and five rounds a minute. This offered little defence against charging cavalry, when an infantry division’s only defence was to form square, an manoeuvre which demanded firm discipline and tight formation to maintain the protective wall of bayonets to hold off the charge. A slightest break in formation left the men at mercy of the cavalry. [we need to reach some conclusion here that an armoured knight would not be out of place].

It seems likely that changing army structures and economic factors led to the decline of knights, rather than a lack of use for them. [bad sentence]. By the sixteenth century, the concept of a combined-arms professional army (with improved, trained infantry tactics) first developed by the Swiss had spread throughout Europe. With the rise in professional armies, with its emphasis on training and paid contracts -rather than ransom and pillaging which reimbursed knights in the past - and the high costs involved in outfitting and maintaining knights’ armour and horses led many of the traditional knightly classes to abandon their profession.

I never did apologise for using your talk page as a sandbox. If it's in the way, move it to the article in question (I just wasn't quite sure which that was) or I'll take it to one of mine. Hope it's some use; feel free to take a snippet out, if that's more appropriate. 9You know I get carried away sometimes!) Gwinva (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi Montana! Thanks for the note, let me give you some links, and just run down the major parts, you can read the rest when you have time. WP:MOS#Images, and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, have most of the information. Basically a few things should be done, and others not done, to allow everyone to see the page as intended. Keeping in mind that not everyone uses the same screen resolution, or font size, images can cause display errors for those readers with visual problems who have to use very large fonts. First, an article should start with a right-aligned image. Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. It is not recommended to place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is also not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). Forcing oversizing over-rides the user's preferences, and especially with those using large fonts, can cause an image to end up being nearly half the width (or more) of an article's page, and can cause the text to display behind the image, making it unreadable. The exceptions to this are a first image, that can be slightly oversized to convey the meaning of the article, or some diagrams or maps, or panoramic views. For the majority of articles, using the default is preferred, and right-alignment is best to avoid display issues. Some longer articles (like some of the featured articles) stagger right-left alignment, but they need to be mindful of where to place the left-aligned images, so there are no display issues for visually impaired readers. There is a WikiProject designed for the accessibility needs of these users, if you're interested, which also details other aspects, such as tables, etc., but basically what I did with the Arabian article was to fix these issues, and make the page more visually balanced, and accessible to all readers. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions! (And sorry for such a long reply, lol) Ariel♥Gold 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can test how text displays by forcing your text to be huge, (in Firefox, hold ctrl, and press + repeatedly) or reducing your resolution, but yeah, it is just for second level headings, the ones without the horizontal line, (===) that the issues arise. The image size doesn't change with font size, but the font size does, and what can happen is you have an image on the right, over half the width of the article for someone using an 800x600 resolution, and then another image across from it, on the left, maybe above or below slightly, and the text either has no room, or only one or two words can fit between them, and sometimes it ends up being displayed behind the image when images are forced to be oversized.

You can move the Darly one, it didn't seem at first glance to be associated with anything when I read the caption, that's why I moved it, so feel free to move it back. The issue was that there was a staggering of R-L-R, but then four images all on the right. I'm actually inclined to think in this case, all right-aligned may work better for the article, especially if some images need to be placed in specific sections for illustration of a passage. But as you know, images aren't decoration, they are there to convey something that text otherwise couldn't (for the most part), so yes, there are some articles, animal articles quite often, or cities, that seem to be just "galleries" of pictures of people's pets, homes, etc., lol. That's an issue at times, and if you remove images, it is a good idea to make a talk page note explaining why. I don't think the article is FA quality yet, but possibly soon. It might be a good idea to get some really good editors on it to work on it with that goal, though! Here is the Manual of Style on accessibility issues: Wikipedia:Accessibility. Feel free to ask anything else, although remember guidelines aren't a hard and fast rule. I just like them, because I think standardization in the majority of articles is a good idea. Obviously, there are articles that don't go by these guidelines, due to the subject matter, and that's okay too! Hope that helped! Ariel♥Gold 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Knights (decline of)

Have you seen the references and suggested paragraph I added above? The prose is a bit poor, but I wasn't going to bother tightening it up too much until you'd looked at it. Any good? Too much detail, or not on the right track? Feel free to grab what you want from it or toss it back to me if it's no use. (And, as I said above, thanks for the use of your page as a sandbox!). Gwinva (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've had bash at the stuff at Horses in warfare; see what you think. I'll have a go at creating something from it all for knight and Horses in the Middle Ages when I get a chance...this week seems to be getting away from me a bit, and I've had hardly any time at the computer. Gwinva 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Appaloosas and Uveitis Frequency... Documentation?

I followed the footnotes regaridng uveitis in Appaloosas you provided to support the statement that Appaloosas are eight times more likely to get uveitis and four times more likely to go blind from it.....One was http://www.cvm.umn.edu/img/assets/9582/Summer%20Scholars%20Faculty%20projects%2007.pdf and quoted, in Mark Rutherford's faculty research project-- "Appaloosas are eight times more likely to develop uveitis and four times more likely to develop blindness compared to other breeds." The other link, to http://www.blindappaloosas.org/current-research.html quoted the same statement from Mark Rutherford. What I cannot find on either site, or any other site, is the actual RESEARCH or published work which Mark Rutherford is getting these %'s from-- do you have that source? From these links, all I see is one person stating these things in his faculty profile, unsupported by peer-evaluated formal research......?? Getspotted (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Will dig a bit, though the blind appaloosas site has more citations, mostly to print journals that I do not have access to. However, I can verify things a bit. Almost every breed has its genetic problems, and virtually every breed registry puts its head in the sand about it. Some quarter horse people are still in denial about HYPP, even. Floors me, but I guess it's human nature. Dog breeds have a lot of similar problems. It's the flip side of breeding purebred stock, homozygousity of traits sometimes brings in the bad with the good. But I will see what I can find to support the material a bit more. Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Found more material at blindappaloosas, citing peer-reviewed journals. Will add the link to the page. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go check it out-- I am not denying that there is an increased frequency in Appaloosas, and I agree that most associations are ignoring or at least delaying addressing the concern. (appears to be changing BTW as the ApHC's Appaloosa Journal will run an article/interview with Dr. Lynn Sandmeyer regarding the Appaloosa Project's research on the connection with nightblindness and appaloosa coloration in Dec 2007). I just wanted to know where Rutherford got such specific %'s because I was unaware of any published/documented studies that had been done that had such specific %'s/conclusions. Getspotted (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It can be a challenge to find peer-reviewed journals, at least for free. I think the one in eight number is in Equine Opthamology, from what the web site text says. I dropped about fifty bucks just on interlibrary loan fees plus various online access charges to obtain all the documentation for another article I helped edit, on cerebellar abiotrophy in Arabians. Probably the quickest way to get info, frankly, is a call to U Minn. You can also email the blindappaloosas guy, his email is on the web site. He may have the figures at his fingertips. Cute username, by the way! Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Equids

Your welcome! But do you mean I have a wikilink to the page that discusses these templates and the guidelines for their use, etc? --4444hhhh (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Oh I'll be in Wikiproject Horse, and I learn how to make templates by studing other templates by going to edit. Like this one below (and a good way to help you learn to make them.)

Edit

Oh, and one more thing is it wrong to call the Przewalski's Horse the Mongolian Tarpan and the Tarpan the Polish Tarpan and the wild horse Tarpan? Because I'm thinking writing a book on equids. --4444hhhh (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Equines

I made Wikipedia:Wikiproject Equines. What do you think?--4444hhhh (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Answered on your talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

LFS and SCID

Wow. There is a dearth of peer reviewed articles on LFS. I'm sure you ran across PMID 17186871, but I can't access it. I hope you don't mind a low importance rating, but the Merck Veterinary Manual doesn't even cover it. More to come in a few minutes on SCID. --Joelmills (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see my comment on the talk page at Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (non-human), in which I agree with you to keep it all in one article. Besides the SCID mouse, SCID is really only well described in Arabians and dogs. --Joelmills (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Asinus revert

Thanks for pointing this out. I commented on her talk page. Jauerback (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Equine

Thank you for what you said on Jauerback talk page! No one gave me a positive message (except ArthurWeasley and Invisible Noise). Or and one more thing before we all get mix-up, I'm in college and I watch a lot of discovery and animal planet and books and that's how I call certain animals with different names and I usually consider pets as a supspecies of their wild ancestors. :) --4444hhhh (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cutting (sport) Horse & Rider Chariot burial Dutch Warmblood Easton, Hampshire Hippology Paso Fino Horse riding stunts Merry Sovereign Shadbelly Pampa horse Mangalarga Liniment Irish Moiled Walkaloosa Vlaamperd Lacustrine Catkin Nez Perce Horse

Cleanup Sorraia Horse tack Evolution of the horse Merge Sand dollar Sacking out Rodeo Add Sources Arappaloosa Connemara pony Qatgani Wikify Peruvian Paso Indian Wild Ass Haflinger (horse) Expand Murgese Konik Colonial Spanish

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gelding

Maybe I should take out one of the castration images from gelding and add it to the veterinary medicine section of castration? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of authenticity! NPOV and all that! Montanabw^(talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Just don't ask me to look..! <Dreadstar covers his eyes>. Dreadstar † 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

re:Horse

Two words: be bold VanTucky ^talk 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold is good, but sometimes it gets reverted! Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading your final comments: Wikipedia is not a land ruled by experts. Saying decisions should best be left to horse experts is nonsense, pure and simple. If you can't work equally and not talk down to non-experts, this is not the place for you. I don't really appreciate your condescending attitude to be perfectly honest. VanTucky ^talk 07:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 07:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the caption was a simple mistake. Not all taxoboxes use the caption function, so I overlooked it. But as to the other issues: seems I took your tone the wrong way, since you say you meant to be lighthearted. My apologies. Also, you mentioned stuff about leaving the sheep and donkey articles alone for some reason or another. I just want you to know that I don't in any way request that you not collaborate on those. This isn't a system of "you stay in your article and I'll stay in mine". I hope you can lend your wisdom and experience to the content of those as well. VanTucky ^talk 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

prod tags

what I think you did may have been to omit to replace the word "reason" with your actual reason, in {{subst:prod|reason}}. You're supposed to give a short explanation in three or four words, and put it at the top of the article page above everything else. when the reason is long, like here, put it on the talk page just like you did, but also give a summary in a few words. But about the article, there are two possibilities--if there is no information about it whatever, including in printed books, it should be deleted. (I've looked at the two web site you mention--I'm no expert, but these appear to be summaries of what is probably an extremely extensive literature. If there is, but it is in fact a sub-type, then it should merged into the Arabian Horse article as a proposed WP:MERGE. Think about this a bit, and then try again. If you cant figure out if it is real, merge, and add a tag {{unreferencedsection}}, and explain on the talk page for the merged article. DGG (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Syrian horse

Thought I'd be bold and try a merge/redir. Revert if it's not right...;) Dreadstar † 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the "elegant solution" compliment and call it a day there, me lass... I'm not shy about leaving things in the hands of the experts...;) Dreadstar † 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tchernomor

Did some checking on the Tchernomor, as requested. There was nothing to be found on it as a breed in any of the websites/books I checked out (including the IMH/KY Horse Park site). The only place the breed seems to be mentioned (generally as Chernomor or occasionally Cherkassky) is in the ancestry of the Budyonny breed, and it seems to be basically the same couple sentances of info, repeated over and over... The most complete summary I found (including going fairly deep into Google), was about half a paragraph here: [1]. I don't know...possibly something Budyonny breeders dreamed up? There doesn't seem to be anything out there that says it's actually a real breed. What would be your suggestion for the next step?Dana boomer (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit more editing on the Budyonny site...if you want to check it out and see if there's anything else you would suggest doing. Thanks!Dana boomer (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious why...

Hi, Just wondering why you pasted the discussion on the proposed horse wikiproject into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine? It seems to serve no purpose (note too that I am in on that discussion anyway.) I have been begging for help the past week or so on the question of if WikiProject Equine needs to be put through any admin hoops, and have gotten no replies. So, just wondering why you did what you did, because if there was some message there, I am not clear what it is... Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Because it was a created project, not one that had yet to be created. That page I moved it from is for proposals, not completed proposals. Since it was completed and there was no need for duplication, I moved it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks for your answer, I see that the proposal is now gone, so that makes sense. Now, the question is, what should we do with the discussion on the talk page? Is there a reason to keep it there forever, for a while, or...? Should the people who signed up be sent a notice that the project was created, or...? Seems that the user who got it going has now sort of left it to me to organize, but I really don't know if there is a "what to do next" protocol, other than to tag as many articles as I can...? Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually talk pages are left until they fill 35k, then archived, so there is always a record of what has been discussed. Some Projects have discussions six years old now, and you can still find the earliest ones. It would be a good idea to send them a notice, so that they can help you tag and build the thing. I've helped in the creation of a couple dozen projects, that's what I have done. Chris (クリス) (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template problem

Hey, just a heads up. There's a mistake in the template. The Hybrids header shows Extinct Species. Breeds and Types is beside Hybrids. Extinct Species is beside Breeds and types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercanter (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

re:articles needing work

Thanks for the head's up, I'll definitely take a look at them all. Happy new year, VanTucky ^talk 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Culnacréann wishes you a Happy New Year!

Hallo! I wish you a Happy New Year, all the best for 2008!. - Culnacréann (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cass Ole--The Black Stallion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cass Ole--The Black Stallion.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps

Please remain civil. Typing in all caps is generally regarded as shouting online. Regarding your concern - I will say again that this a truly excellent article, and the citations are impressive - however, certain sections have lots and lots of cites, and certain sections have none. This is what I meant by my comment. Dreamafter has responded to your shouting on the talk page with an exact explanation of what I meant. I hope that helps. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't read about horses, or write about horses. The work that I have done started with helping a friend, and then I saw Corvus coronoides comments and decided to help you out in finding which sections he was talking about. Dreamafter ^⇔ 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've tagged the article with the {{fact}} tags you wanted to see. As for your specific concerns, if you use the same source for all three paragraphs, then it shouldn't be too hard to copy the cite to all sentences that need cites. Also, I would not characterize putting the article on hold as a threat to delist - think of it rather as suggestions for improvement before the article's GA status is updated.Corvus coronoides _talk 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BP

Calmly, deep breaths...meditate..release caps lock and you're fine. :) Dreadstar † 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award you this 1:00 am Tireless Contributor award for your efforts to add sources to horses !! Dreadstar † 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

please consider

"Merging, no such thing as a "Syrian Arabian," WAHO accepts the Syrian registry"

The Syrian Arabian is a less popular breed of horse, similar to the Arabian. You could consider it rare.

The reason why Dreamafter requested a merge is because I asked. I thought there were two Syrian Arabian pages; at point there were. One was titled Syrian (Horse) I think. The other, I created, titled Syrian Arabian. Is there anyway I can retrieve my article?

Much apologies for the confusion.

--Éowyn of Rohan | Talk _(MWB) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect and your source does not support your contentions. More extensive explanation at your page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi! I think you may find this interesting. Regards.Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

I wasn't sure it was a seperate breed or not... thanks for clearing that up!

Wishing you happy-ness

--Éowyn of Rohan | Talk _(MWB) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Breeds

I've been looking at some of the Dutch breeds, and I'm wondering what your opinion on merging some of the articles would be. From looking at the KY Horse Park/IMH site here, it looks like the Dutch Warmblood, Dutch harness horse and Gelderland (horse) are all considered to be the same breed according to the Dutch KWPN studbook. Also, according to the IMH site on the Groningen horse here it has been for the most part merged into the DWB breed. It looks like the Wiki page (check out the talk page) for the Groningen was made by the person who runs an association calling for the continued separation of the breed form the DWB. (I made some formatting changes to this site, but nothing content wise.) If they're all the same breed, would it be wise to merge them all and make the other pages into redirects? Let me know what you think.

Also (on a slightly off-topic note), what would you think of merging the article on Smetanka with the main Orlov Trotter page (especially since most of the info is already there)? It doesn't seem like there's a lot more to say on the foundation stud, does he really need his own page? Dana boomer (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm here to butt in! The KWPN is one registry which has several "breeding directions" which it details on it's own website. The Dutch Warmblood, Gelderlander, and Dutch Harness Horse are different "breeds", much more distinct than the Rhinelander is from the Westphalian, for example. Is IMH considered some kind of authority? Countercanter (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem butting in, this page winds up being a sandbox for article discussions sometimes, I don't mind. Here's my take: I'd say not to merge. First off, Countercanter has tremendous credibility with me on the warmblood topics because of the excellent research and sourcing I have seen in the edits. I also know that Countercanter tends to have a more restrictive view of what constitutes a "breed" than some, thus if s/he says these are distinct enough "breeds" to have separate articles, then I support that view. As for details, I know that the Dutch Harness Horse is being treated as a different breed from the Dutch Warmblood in the USA because a few people are crossbreeding them on Arabians trying to create a real powerfully-trotting saddle seat horse. If the Gelderlander is fully merged into the DW and there are no purebreds left, then I'd rather consider it being classed as an extinct breed, given that it was once distinct. (Note articles on extinct breeds like the Norfolk Trotter and Narragansett Pacer, for example)

No, I don't really want to merge Smetanka, but I admit that this is because I'm biased--I created it! (grin). Objectively, one reason for this is that Smetanka is of minor significance within the Arabian breed as well as being a foundation sire for the Orlov Trotter. I won't scream and hold my breath until I turn blue over it, but I think the standalone article passes WP:Notability. It's also fun to say "Smetanka" several times fast...Smetanka Smetanka Smetanka Smetanka Smppbbbth ... (wiping spittle from mouth now, 'scuse me...) :-D

As for sources, IMH (Kentucky Horse Park International Museum of the Horse) and the Oklahoma State web sites are the two "best" (not necessarily the same as high quality) general sources easily accessed on the net for answering the question of "is this a 'real' breed?" and getting basic info. They are more reliable than most other big lists that tend to contain a lot of "breeds" that aren't breeds. These two sites are not the final and definitive authority, and I have found factual errors within some of the individual articles, particularly those at Ok State, but I use them frequently as about the only online sources available for obscure breeds, and if some breed is not mentioned at all there, I have used those sources on the relatively few occasions I argue for complete removal of a "breed" article.

Overall, I guess I tend to be hesitant to merge breed articles generally unless they really are the same breed for a couple reasons. First, based on the edit history of list of horse breeds, if we over-merge, then the same articles just get recreated again, sometimes with even poorer quality (I can name at least two different "offenders" on this, but I won't). I have also seen multiple articles on the same obscure breed on more than one occasion, none of which were written with any knowledge that the others were out there.

Second, I tend to disfavor merges to counter my own biases. I am first and foremost an Arabian aficionado (never guess that, huh?), and thus my own personal attitude is that almost EVERYTHING else is some sort of crossbreed (grin). Thus, I tend to figure that I'd be better off to err on the side of being pretty generous, and if enough people care about some type of horse to create a breed registry or have some sort of mainstream legitimate recognition (like the 8 breeds of horse native to Indonesia that, as far as I can tell, are virtually identical, but the FAO thinks they are different) and if it isn't just a few people trying to promote their own farm, or some other blatent marketing ploy then what the hay.

The most marginal breed articles I see out there but which I have not proposed for merge or deletion are the Virginia highlander, and the even more obscure Camarillo White Horse, but heck, the people of the City of Camarillo made it their official horse, so who am I to argue? On the other hand, I have found only one farm anywhere that raises the "American Spotted Paso", they've only been at it a few years, and I have succeeded in having it speedily deleted twice on the grounds that it's just advertising. Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Anyone want to help with a really annoying job, compare Category:Horse breeds to the article List of horse breeds with a cross-check in Category:Horses to see if new breed articles snuck in without notice, our watchlists don't flag new articles that are added automatically to a category -- sigh. Bleecch! Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall bow to your expertise then :) I was just checking to see if those merges were something that needed to be done. If the consensus is that they not be merged, then is it OK to remove the merge tags from Gelderland/DWB that you put there, Montana? I'll take a look at the category/list comparison. Also, the Marbach article looks great. Nice work!Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Horses in Middle Ages

I'm back, and I see that Wikipedia managed to survive without me. Also note the GA sweep at Horses in the Middle Ages and comments...another thing to add to my to-do list...I just can't keep up....ugh ahhh! I thought wikibreaks were supposed to help stress levels???!!! Gwinva (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully there won't be a big stink about it...though, if there is, I suppose I'll just make a page East Friesian/Old-Oldenburg. East Friesian is confusing, anyhow, as people are likely to think - as I did - that they are from the eastern part of Friesland! Old-Oldenburg looks awkward. Anyhow, here's hoping! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercanter (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Alt" for "Old" is understandable and defensible as long as you can source it and prove it isn't violating the wiki rule about original research. Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Montanabw

Take a look at the Swedish Warmblood article. On it is a photo with the words 'Tip Top (Master/Chagall) at the 2007 World Cup Las Vegas'. I know you might not have the time to notice everything but do these count as peacock words about an individual horse? I ask because you removed the words, 'Shear H20, an Irish Horse successful in eventing' from the Irish Sport Horse article and added '...tweaking caption to remove peacock words about an individual horse' in the edit summary. I believe in one law for all (fair play) - Culnacréann-(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm back!

Hola! I'm back from the Antarctic. Noticed that some things have been exciting while I've been gone. Give me a few days to get back into the swing of things, and then hopefully I can help out on the Arabian article. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, threw a citation at the Arabian horse article. Found a source that says no dun gene in the Arabian breed. Still hunting for the other fact tags.... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Galician/Asturcon Ponies

It seems the sources are giving us mixed information. I've looked at the OSU site, and although they have seperate listings for both ponies, their description of location and ancestor breeds is almost the same. My breed book (Simon & Schuster, so it is outdated, although usually correct on background) says that they're the same breed. The Equine Kingdom site [2], which claims to be quoting from The Encyclopedia of Horses and Ponies, by Tamsin Pickeral, and The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Horses, by Susan McBane, says they're the same breed. I don't have those books, so I can't check. If you think we should leave them seperate, though, then I'll just work on expanding both pages.Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moyle horse

Um, I wasn't the one who tagged it for speedy deletion, or deleted it, although I agree with that tagging/deletion. Sorry not to have been more help. If it had been declined, though, I would have taken it through AfD on your behalf, and expect it would have been gone. If it gets re-created, let me know and I'll do that, just so it stays gone. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I assume that you're up to date with Czechoslovakian Small Riding Pony, FYI, a new article. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And also another article stub begun by the same editor -- you may wish to check the recent contributions of the creator of Czechoslovakian Small Riding Pony. I assume you're on top of this already but it never hurts to be doubly sure. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New infobox

For your perusal .... Template:Horse infobox. Let me know how much I broke, since this is the first time I've tried a template. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Leap in and change anything you want. We needed a non-race infobox for all the horses that aren't TB racehorses, but I'm not competent enough to start from scratch (grins). It looks like this in action: Baby Doll Combs. I put the race information in for things like Quarter Horse racehorses (see Dash For Cash or Moon Deck) or for poor Wiking (horse) when I get around to him. I did base the template on the TB racehorse one, but dropped a few parameters, and added a few - like breed and a section for non-race awards. Discipline is a good idea, should probably go after breed. And yeah, the brown can go easy, but pink? Eeww... how about a nice blue or green? I despise pink. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Added in discipline field, and changed the color to a nice green. I made it so most of the fields are optional, and won't show up if they are empty, which is a change from the racehorse box. See any other changes you want? Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)