Talk:Arabian horse

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Questions

What are the external links doing in the infobox? Is this typical of horse-related articles?Corvus coronoides _talk 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds. I am no expert on infoboxes, but that was the template agreed upon well before I became a wikipedian, it's been around for more than 2 years, anyway. Horse breed standards are often more extensive than the AKC ones for dogs, so it's hard to precisely migrate the template. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I ask because I'm currently reviewing the article for GA Sweeps. I understand that it is hard to change the template, but usually in info boxes external links aren't used to fill in the fields. If this happens in every horse article, then I'll understand, but it seems strange to me. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, that infobox format is used everywhere that it appears in any of the horse breed articles (see American Paint Horse, that was the prototype, I think) and I wasn't in on its creation, I've just been using it since. However, I also seem to be the only person who is doing anything actively with wikiproject horse breeds, at the moment, so if you can help me figure out a better way to do this, I'm all ears...I think the goal was to source a set of official standards, and the template came off of whatever they did for the dog breeds. If you could be so kind as to take a glance over at the project page and see if there is a way to point myself or anyone else who cares in the right direction, I'm willing to add it to the to do list. Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and explain "GA Sweeps?" Montanabw^(talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See here for some details on the Sweeps. I would suggest changing that link in the infobox into something other than "Stds" but it's your choice. As I'm not part of the horse wikiproject, I think it's really up to you. I'll get back to you with a more detailed review after I get back from vacation. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think that the merge should happen because the other one is a shorter version of this, with some bits in it that could be put here. Any thoughts? Dreamafter ^⇔ 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply blanked and redirected the article, there is no such thing as a "Syrian Arabian," there are Purebred Arabians in Syria. There was just a spat between the World Arabian Horse Organization and the Syrian Government over the recognition of their studbook, an issue that has now been resolved, if you will note at the bottom of the "controversies" section of this article. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. It's fixed now. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Some sections lack inline cites completely. Ideally, I'd like to see at least one cite per paragraph in a GA article.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Overall, an excellent article - it just needs some more cites. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? THIS ARTICLE HAS OVER 100 CITATIONS! HOW MANY DO YOU WANT!!! Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information:

1. The third paragraph in the article has no citations; Cited
2. The entire "Colors" section has no citations; cited
3. The first and third paragraph in the "Colors that do not exist in purebreds" section does not have citations; That is because the above section on colors explained that they only come in certain colors, so logically, they do not have any others, thus other material simply points out a couple of obvious conclusions from known data cited previously. Seems illogical to cite again...
4. The "Rabicano or roan?" section has no citations; cited
5. The "Influence on other horse breeds" section has no citations; Hmm, I suppose about 200 other horse breed articles on Wikipedia with sources that say their breed had Arabian ancestors doesn't cut it, eh? Can't put all 200 cites here, will try and find something that summarizes it. Sigh...
6. The last paragraph of the "Desert roots" section has no citations; cited
7. The first paragraph of the "Strains and pedigrees" section has no citations; cited
8. The first and second paragraphs in the "From the Middle East to Europe" section has no citations; I think the whole section is from the Harrigan source cited at the end of the third paragraph, do you really want to just source the same material three times in a row? I mean, if you really are going to jerk GA status for not having one cite per paragraph, fine, but this one is overkill
9. The last paragraph in the "Modern warfare and its impact on European studs" section has no citations; will review later
10. The "Arabians today" section has no citations; Cited
11. The first paragraph in the "Uses" section has no citations; cited, but it's an introduction, for pete's sake!
12. The first two paragraphs in the "Competition" section have no citations; seems irrelevant, something to challenge in there?
13. The last paragraph in the "Other activities" section has no citations; ditto
14. The first paragraph in the "Controversies" section has no citations; um, that's because it's an introductory paragraph and all contentions summarized there are explained in detail in subsequent subsections...
15. The "Physical size" Section has no citations; sort of states the obvious, could reference materials from other sections, seems redundant to do so.
16. The "Hip angle" section has no citations; will check materials for sourcing
17. The " "Arabians are magic" beliefs" section has no citations; You haven't read the earlier archives here, have you? (grin) Can romanticizing idiots saying really stupid things be a source? Yes, I know. This one is a "widely understood within the industry" thing, will see what's out there
18. The fifth part of the " "Purity" question" has no citations; Suggestions on how to prove a negative? Can't surf 50 preservation sites to say, "nope, none make this claim..."? Seriously, got any ideas?

I hope that that helps you find the references for those. Dreamafter ^⇔ 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreamafter. That is exactly what I meant. Montanabw, I also replied to your message on my talk page. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing GA status with FA status. And seriously, even by FA standards if you really think that EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH (yes, I am shouting) needs a citation for GA status or to conform to any other standard, then please provide a specific link to the wikipedia guidelines that specifically say that every single paragraph requires a footnote because I think you are over the top. I mean "first paragraph of section X has no citations", that would be because it is an INTRODUCTION, and as a general rule, introductory paragraphs are by their nature summaries that introduce what will be discussed (and sourced) as the section proceeds. I mean, for pete's sake. I have no problems with a couple of the spots you noted, but I really think you are over the top to threaten to delist the article from GA, particularly when all that is needed to challenge material that you might legitimately think is questionable are a couple of polite {{fact}} tags. Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

According to criterion 2b, at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. Since I am reviewing this article for the Project Quality Sweeps, I think that a quality article needs a cite in every paragraph. Again, please be civil. I think that GA's need to be verifiable, and at this point, this article is close to there, and finding cites for the remaining locations will be fine. You suggest the use of {{fact}} tags - if I tagged things with those tags, the article would have one every other sentence. For GA - all I require is at least one cite per paragraph. Corvus coronoides _talk 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo: To that end, I read WP:WIAGA too: Yup, "(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; I see NOTHING about citing every paragraph. I do NOT think that a "quality article" needs a cite in every paragraph, particularly for widely known and accepted general knowledge. I still want to see your evidence for that being more than your personal opinion. Like I said, if you really find something controversial, counter-intuitive or whatever and have a LEGITIMATE reason to challenge it, then feel free to place appropriate {{fact}} tags. The 18 examples above have maybe five or six legitimate concerns that could appropriately be tagged. But I really think a threat to delist from GA status is overkill, particularly when the version that first obtained GA status (and withstood a challenge at the time, by the way) was less sourced than it is now. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a quality sweep. And the above criteria applies because to be verifiable, I believe an article should have a cite for at least every main idea - ie, every paragraph. Since you insist, I will tag all statements that I feel need cites. Corvus coronoides _talk 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This now has over 100 refs, plenty for a GA, even an FA. 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

The issue I had was because the refs were not evenly dispersed, not that there weren't enough - some sections had likely-to-be-challenged statements that needed cites. Corvus coronoides _talk 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - the point of the sweeps is to check the quality of all GA articles. I can see why this article passed its GA, but to uphold the quality of all articles, we need to make sure that all articles are verifiable. This applies especially to articles as long as this where controversial statements might slip through the cracks. Please keep in mind that I am reviewing this article as one who knows nothing about horses - thus sentences that might seem blatantly true to you will seem controversial or likely-to-be-challenged to me. If such is the case, I would think that other people who don't have prior knowledge of horses will also find some claims to be likely-to-be-challenged. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that one ref per para is reasonable for a GA but many of the tags you just added are beyond what is need for a GA. You essentially are asking that GAs now meet FA standards and are violating WP:POINT. No wonder so many editors have given up on GAs. Having said that, yes there are a few paras still missing refs. Note that I've written 11 FAs and several GAs, so I know something about this, though I also know nothing about horses. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so how 'bout one ref per paragraph? I only added the tags because Montanabw requested them, I added tags where I thought the material could be challenged. I will pass the article if all paragraphs are cited.Corvus coronoides _talk 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Rlevse, I was not attempting to make a point, and I'm sorry that my actions were misinterpreted. Montanabw, I respect all the hard work that has gone into this article and thank you for being willing to add the cites you did. I have removed all fact tags from the article except a few that - they are for statements which say something "never" happens, which I feel should be cited as a quasi-statistic. Would this be a reasonable course of action? Corvus coronoides _talk 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the tags on the "never" section discussing the colors that do not occur in purebreds, even though it is implicitly sourced by the cite in the first paragraph of the section, but given that Palomino half-Arabs and Pinto half- Arabs are popular, and some people think they are purebreds, it needs to be said. It may take a while to find a source that explicitly says this (though one could search the entire datasource and prove it), as it is simply widespread common knowledge within the breed, but I shall do some digging. I still think it is ludicrous to pull an article from GA status just because there is not a cite on every paragraph, and if this happens here, I will appeal immediately. Some articles may have material so controversial that every sentence needs a cite, others may only need one or two citations for an entire article, a mechanistic approach doesn't seem right to me. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MY suggestion--at least one ref per paragraph and remove the other cite tags. Montanabw just find the best refs you can for each uncited para. With all the other refs here, I think that'd be fine. CC-I think your tags would be needed for a FA. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to go with either the option I offered above or Rlevse's option. Pick the one you like best, Montana. Corvus coronoides _talk 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is this: If I do not add one single more tag at the moment, beyond what's there , are you going to request this article be delisted from GA status? It is one thing to encourage additional citations as needed, I have no problem with that -- note I added several last night -- but some of these requests will require access to hardcopy books for proper citation, takes a bit longer to dig them out (no Google or word search to go through all 400 pages of Lady Wentworth's book, you know), and it takes some time. If you can just pass it on this round of sweeps, I would be grateful. I ask this because I am in the middle of a massive amount of work tagging articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds and am trying to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine off the ground, plus someone put me in charge of Wikipedia:WikiProject horse training, which is such a disaster that I don't even know where to start, so frankly, I have other fish to fry. If you note the history of this page, I probably tweak something here on a weekly or biweekly basis as it is (the rest is reverting vandalism), so it's not like I am fully content with it as is. User:Ealdgyth, who is well-qualified to help edit this article, is on vacation until the 11th or the 16th or something, and she can also help, but right now, it's just me, and I am spread pretty thin. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable just passing this article since this is a quality sweep, but I could extend the hold on the article until you are able to add the hard-copy cites. Does that work? Corvus coronoides _talk 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, at this point, I don't even know for sure what you are after, do you just want to have two "cite needed" tags fixed that are in the article presently, or what? I have to tell you that a mechanistic rule to cite every paragraph sounds like something left behind by my worst 8th grade English teacher. It matters to cite facts and challenged material, I have no disagreement there, I see utterly no reason to cite, say, introductory paragraphs. Seriously, when did the standard for GA change? Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to either see the remaining tags addressed or just one ref per non-introductory paragraph. Does that sound reasonable? Also, many over at WP:GA feel that too many articles are being passed that shouldn't be, so this is why the quality sweep is being done. I don't mean to detract from your work, I am just uncomfortable passing an article this long with such concentrated cites. I will if the other fact tags are addressed though. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the remaining tags, that should be within reason, just the ones in the color section? Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those. :) Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Pass

Since all remaining {{fact}} tags have been addressed, I have passed the article.Corvus coronoides _talk 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) those horses are bueteful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.222.36 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

Is it just me, or does this article contain way too much fluff and unneeded information? I believe it needs to be cut down to a manageable length. --Redwolf75 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just you (LOL - grinning and ducking)! The article has been granted Good Article status by independent editors of wikipedia, and though there were critiques, none were about length. Not to say that there isn't always room to improve an article, but this is simply one of many long articles. One person's "fluff" is another person's critical information. If any individual sections seem a bit "fluffy," feel free to offer any specific comments and we can take a look at them and explain why they are significant (or, if you are right and they are fluff, we may edit accordingly). Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Work

I've begun the work of moving all of the citations into templates and expanding the references section to back up the notes. A couple of things that I've also noticed:

• Several books need page numbers attached to their references...
• There are many unreferenced sections...this will be challenged at FA...I've been adding fact tags as I go along...
• There are many short sections (one or two sentences) that should be combined with other sections or expanded...
• There shouldn't be new information in the lede, so there shouldn't need to be citations (especially four of them) in the lede...
• Should the controversies section really be called controversies? This was challenged for the Thoroughbred GA and we found a way around it. Is there something we can do here?

Just my thoughts...this article basically just needs a good copy edit and a few more references, I think! Dana boomer (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We probably need to get another top picture, as this one is moving out of the article. Let me know when you're finished tinkering and I'll swoop in and see what I can reference. As for the controversies section, the current trend is to integrate that information into the article itself. My suggestion is to merge the conformation/temprament stuff into the Breed characteristics, move the ancestry of other breeds stuff to it's own section, put the hot blooded, magic and purity things into mythology (purity could possibly go into ancestry too), and put the genetic diseases either into arabians today or into its own section. Don't shoot me, but we probably need to cover Arabians in the middle east too. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK gang, I am guilty of WP:OWN here and I admit it, but I am willing to see the article improved so am trying to stay calm and not hyperventilate because you guys are people I trust and respect. Just let's be sure to talk stuff through before going in so that I have a little time to adjust! This was my baby that I took care of for at least a year and a half all by myself before anyone else cared and so I just beg for you to be patient while I wring my hands and say, "oh please DO be careful!!!" (grin). In short, about 80% of the content is mine alone, and the rest was mostly my rehab of what was originally there when I started. So be kind to my delicate ego, when possible. (grinning) Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as to specifics:

1. Go for it with the fact tags, I had an earlier challenge on that on the last GA review and added a ton, but feel free to do what's needed in that department.
2. We can be careful with the working in of controversies into other sections as needed. Maybe purity with ancestry, that works. Mythology needs to stay mostly as is, that's the fairy tales section, not the flaky New Age section! (grin) Not sure what to do with the hot blooded versus magic-- temperament perhaps. Let me think about that one for a bit.
3. Good luck finding a better image. It took me six months to find that image and it is the best image of an Arabian anywhere in Wiki -- trust me, I've been looking! The others either suck conformationally, are not characteristic of the breed, are of terrible quality, etc. The image also has the advantage of being a horse in Germany, so more representative of worldwide Arabians than the airheaded anorexic halter twigs we are currently promoting in the states (and someday I'll give you my REAL opinion on that! LOL!) But if you find images that may be better, we can sure pop them here on the talk page for analysis.
4. Yes, I KNOW there are page numbers missing and it's pretty much all my fault. If the cites are otherwise formatted, I will take the responsibility to add in page numbers, I promise. At least for Upton, Bennett, etc
5. Please be careful, some cites got deleted entirely from the article in the last series of edits. I am going in to clean up.
6. I am not certain what the rule is on citing magazines with both print and online versions, but I was puzzled at the removal of web links from articles that can be accessed on the web--seems to increase verifiability. I am replacing them for now. Someone show me that rule because I must go off and disagree with it...
7. I'm OK with tossing citations in the lead, but the reason they got put there was in response to challenged material. I cannot win. (If you toss them, some are used multiple times, so be sure if they are the first example of a ref that it is fully cited the next time it appears.
8. Cover Arabians in the Middle East? Explain. I take it you mean something other than the "Arabians in Islamic History" section and the "Egypt" section we already have? My only concern is that almost all the Arabians bred in the Middle East today are actually drawn from either the old Egyptian bloodlines or stuff reimported back to the middle east from the western world -- In short, we could hit every nation recognized by WAHO and bloat the article more, or maybe have a one-paragraph summary about how middle eastern breeders are rediscovering their own roots...? Not opposed, just curious what you mean...

Heh. Remember where I am? I can FIND us an Arabian image. What color do we want? Head shot? Trotting? I have pics. Can get more. And as for Arabians in the middle east, I meant the second option. I need to sit down and read the history and current time sections and see what's in there, so that we don't get bias screams. Hopefully today, not going to be having an equine dentist out at least. (I'd forgotten what fun a ranch full of horses is... blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone over your edits, Montana, and I can see where you're concerns are. The tossing of the links from the short form of the journal links was just me being air-headed, I've gone back through and re-added them. I've also done some tweaking of your other edits. What I was headed for with the book and journal refs was approximately what we did for Thoroughbred if you want to take a look at that to see what the finished product should (hopefully) look like. The basic idea is to leave complete citations for straight websites in the article itself, but for journals/newspaper articles/books to have the short form in the notes and the longer form in the reference section. Whichever way we do it, we should be consistent.

As for the refs that looked like they got tossed, I think you saw when you went through the article that they hadn't actually been tossed: instead I'd hidden them because they were bad, didn't back up the text, or had something else funky about them. I saw your hidden text comments, and in the future I'll just throw a fact tag in and a hidden comment, without hiding the bad ref.

Once I'm done formatting all of the refs (which should be sometime today), I'll go through some of the old versions of the article to see if I can find any other refs that got accidentally tossed at some point, and also start working on referencing and general cleanup/copyediting. There are a few of the websites that I formatted and didn't put hidden text in that I still feel probably wouldn't pass at FA, and so we should probably take a good hard look at all of our references once we have the broken links out and everything else done.Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another response after more work... I've finished formatting the refs, so all of the good links the ones I haven't put hidden notes and fact tags next to) should be fine. I took apart the controversies section and tossed its various parts and pieces into the sections where I felt they best fit. If anyone feels they would go better someplace else, please feel free to move them. I kept "genetic diseases" as its own separate section, since this appears to be a fairly major thing. (Just to put out right now, I'm not an Arab expert, and have never had very good experiences with, as Montana put it, the "airheaded anorexic halter twigs" so common today. Give me an Appy or ranch-bred QH/grade any day :)) I've also done some minor tweaking on section headings, as they're not supposed to contain the title of the article. I'll be continuing to work on the article for another couple of hours, but thought I'd drop a note here to give an update and some reasons for what I'm doing.

Montana, this is a great article to work with - you've done a lot of good work, it's well cited, and should be fairly easy to clean up. Nice job! (And I understand your feelings on ownership...if I get too pushy with "your" article feel free to smack me!) Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

Looking over things real quick here, I wonder why the Colors subsection is so much more huge than the rest of the breed characteristics? Some of the genetic information probably could go to the respective color articles, since neither sabino or rabicino is exculsive to Arabians. (or wasn't the last time I checked). I'll work on expanding the history sections. (there are parts that are really skimpy, other parts that perhaps are a bit bloated, I'll have to do an indepth read to see). The jumping picture is having some overlap of the prose issues at least on my screen. It probably needs to be tweaked. Lets see if we can change the bulleted lists into prose? Lists, especially ones like these where the points are practiacally paragraphs anyway, are really frowned on at FAC. I'm thinking the genetic diseases section probably needs to go somewhere else, I liked the organization of the TB article also, which had less top level sections, and more subsections. Hopefully, tonight I can piddle with that a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved "genetic diseases" into "breed characteristics" as a sub-section...feel free to move it if you think it's better someplace else. I agree on the color thing, but am not sure what exactly needs to be taken out. It would be great if you could work on the history section! I'm not having any problem with the jumping picture on my browser (Mozilla Firefox), but we should probably fix that (although I'm not really sure how). I've made sure all of the pics have the "thumb" designation on them, per guidelines, but other than that I'm not sure what to change... Agree on the lists, it shouldn't take that much work to change them into prose. Agree with the comparison to the TB article, but I'm not totally sure what top level sections we could combine. Maybe "influences on other breeds" with "uses" and "mythology" with "origins"?

I think I'm done for the day, so if you want to play, go ahead... I would love for someone else to be bold on it! *runs ducking from Montana after changing everything around :)* Dana boomer (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged a bit, added a pile more Fact tags, and added a few hidden comments. Back out shortly to the farrier, if you could look over the rearrangement real quick? I didn't cut anything, just moved it around. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The referencing is the major thing we need to think about at the moment though. Also, the length of the article. It's over 107kb long and we've still got a ton more stuff (citations, but still) to add in!!!! That's even longer than the main horse article, which is sitting at 88k right now!!! OK, just had to mention that. I don't know if there's any way to shorten that, as I realize this is basically the most important/well-known/multi-use breed in the world, but still... Anyway, that's my thoughts for the moment. Have fun with the referencing! Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a bunch in the color section to trim out and transfer to the respective color articles, so that'll help. It's 8700 words of "prose", or about 53K of readable text with Dr. PDA's tool, so we're getting up there, but not too bad. We can ask some folks to help copyedit it down after we get more settled. (pants) Sorry, it's hot and just got done with the farrier, thankfully. I'm so glad this is only a temp job! 79 horses to look after is insane! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Back atcha: I'm good with the working in of the controversies stuff elsewhere, that worked well. I am restoring the color stuff for the moment, pending further discussion. I agree it's long, I am open to ideas on how to cut it, I've actually wanted to cut it myself in the past, but there is a reason so much color stuff was added, and that is that it has been inserted, bit by bit, to fend off the people who think spotted Arabians are cool and periodically add things that can't be backed up genetically (I personally do not dig spots on purebreds and I think pink-skinned white horses are butt-ugly), so if anything I am being extra-fair to the color breeders in order to overcome my own prejudice. I was brought into acceptance of sabino spotting as OK on Arabians kicking and squealing). We also must be careful to distinguish the "white horse" thing with gray Arabians and stay genetically consistent. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Err.. I didn't cut any of the color stuff, just moved it around. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. So much moved around that I got totally confused, so I reverted it, we can try again. Putting gray horses with "white" just freaked me out. Let's sort this section out before hacking on it again.

As for a lead photo, though the gray there now is pretty, if we replace the photo, we DO have way too many grays in the article, IMHO, have you got a nice Bay or chestnut, properly conformed, properly set up or trotting with natural shoes and not EP shoes? I believe the stats say 60% of registered Arabs are bay, and it would be nice to get away from the "Arabians are all black or white" myth...I say if you have a small selection, put up a gallery in a sandbox off this page and we can all pick our favs! Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL.. This ranch I'm currently at, they don't have grays. I bought their last gray four years ago. They breed bays. Here's one cull already Image:Trottinggeldingbeta.jpg. And they don't do EP horses here, so no high heel shoes. I'll do some culling on stuff hopefully this week. As far as "gray" with "white", gray is a form of white hairs, you know. (tickles Montana). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that one. Bless ya its a very nice-looking animal (great neck, among other things!) But I ruled it out because the horse is in leg wraps and not presented for show (biggest reason), plus you can't see his pretty head very well because he's trotting away, he's moving prettily but less powerfully than the gray currently in the lead image, plus the angle he's at makes his butt look a little peaky even if it isn't. The current lead photo isn't perfect either, but whoever found it and put it there did a nice job of finding a horse with a "Wow" factor. (And best of all, it wasn't one I took!). Too bad we don't have something like that Rabicano photo, but I don't think we want to want to use a rabicano as the lead image, for obvious reasons. (Also don't want to use the other grays because they look too reedy and halter-y for me...Dana, that was what I meant earlier!). Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm thinking I'm going to have to go over the sourcing with the proverbial "FAC" eye here, and try to sort out what will pass muster at FAC and what won't. The problem with me working on this article is that folks will insist that the article be reliably sourced, since I go through every FAC and make them do their sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Or course, if I wasn't working on the article, I'd be the one making ya'll meet WP:V and WP:RS, so there really isn't any escaping. What I'll do is go through it (hopefully tomorrow) and note all the questionable sources on this talk page. THen we can see about replacing them (which will be fun). Anyway, I'm done for the night, I think. Got rounds to do in the morning, gotta check every horse on the property! (79 at last count, ugh!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoist by your own petard, eh? (grin). I think you LIKE checking on 79 horses, by the way! LOL! I'll try to get some of the GBE page numbers in later. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Source comments

• This source http://www.arabianhorses.org/home/faq/AskExpert6.asp for these statements "Thus, even a small Arabian can carry a heavy rider with ease. Arabians usually have dense, strong bone, sound feet, and good hoof walls. They are especially noted for endurance." probably doesn't qualify under the "third party" parts of the WP:RS guidelines. AHA wouldn't be considered a third party neutral source. Shouldn't be that hard to replace though.
• I'd really like us to get away from using the AHA site as a source for history, etc. But since it seems to be my lot in life to do the history sections of breed articles, I'll take care of this myself.
• For this statement "On the other hand, the Arabian is also classified as a "hot-blooded" breed, a category that includes other refined, spirited horses bred for speed, such as the Thoroughbred and the Barb. Like other hot-bloods, Arabians' sensitivity and intelligence enable quick learning and greater communication with their riders." we definitely need to get away from the AHA here.
• Current ref 19 "Why Color your horse" is dead for me, I get nothing.
• http://www.mustangs4us.com/Horse%20Colors/rabicano.htm This site won't pass muster. Same for http://equine-ranch.com/colorchart.php. And http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/dreams/799/hc/rabicano.htm.
• Much as I love the Al Khamsa org, we probably need a backup source for the legends about the AK mares.
• http://www.wiwfarm.com/kuhaylan.htm is a personal website, needs to be replaced.
• http://nabataea.net/horse.html is not a reliable source, needs replacing.
• like I said, I'll deal with all the history and origins sources...
• http://www.horse-country.com/faqs/andalusians.html Is not reliable (mailing list postings aren't... )
• We should probably replace the Encyclopedia Britannica citation, it's really odd to cite another general purpose encyclopedia as a source.
• http://www.eponahispano-arabe.co.uk/The%20Horses%20of%20Spain.html personal web site. Needs replacing
• It would be nice to replace http://www.varianarabians.com/history/ronteza.asp with a published/non-farm website, but it probably will pass muster

Like I said, I will take care of the history/origins ones, so those aren't included in the list above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted! I probably won't be on much this weekend, but will probably spend some time at the library next week to see if I can't cite some of this stuff (if you haven't already by that point)! Thanks for going through with your eagle eye... Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my plan is to work on this list some hopefully today and this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for improving sources as we can, but I am also going to double-dog dare you to find better sources on all the stuff you are questioning, (grin) particularly the Rabicano material and the Wind Im Wald stuff--which is mostly reprints of old magazine articles (well, maybe we could find the old magazine articles or not admit we got them off the Wind Im Wald site??) But seriously, I think you are being a little hard on AHA (However, you may also be amused to note their "genetic diseases" pages...and who wrote them, and where they came from... (wink))

As for the double-dog dare: A wiki beer is at stake here. OTOH, if this goes FA, I also will promise a box of chocolate to both Ealdgyth and Dana (if you are OK sending me mailing addresses via email) for all your help!

A couple notes as you source: First off, the Andalusian FAQ thing does (if I'm thinking of the right citation) have some internal cites, I'll check. But just be aware that the Andalusian people are VERY VERY touchy about the implication that their "pure since the cave paintings at Lascaux horses have a drop of Arab blood in them (sigh). They are forced, due to the DNA study, to admit there is Barb breeding, but then they also claim that Barbs are in no way related to Arabians. Hence that whole bit. (Like I say, most of the bloat settled various edit wars) Was a bothersome edit war over this a little under two years ago.

Second, a lot of the old books are not entirely correct, and the AHA site can actually be pretty decent for a lot of stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't the AHA being wrong (I agree they are probably correct) it's that they aren't a third party neutral site. What we need is something like UCDavis for Arabian ancestry (grins). I'm not saying the sources currently in there are wrong (I doubt they are) but they don't fit the RS guidelines, either they aren't published by recognized experts in the field (Al-Marah fits that one) or they aren't third party and neutral. AHA is fine for the rules, etc. of the AHA, it's the ancestry of the breed, what they are used for, where they aren't third party enough for folks. That's all.

I have a lot of stuff that's been published in Arabian Visions and Al Khamsa that deal with ancestry of the Arabian, which will be helpful. Unfortunately, it's all at home. (I could only bring so much with me...) I did pull up a bunch of stuff off of JSTOR that may or may not help with this too. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I wouldn't really call Arabian Visions or Al Khamsa "neutral third party" either (LOL!) but per WP:CITE, is there not some guideline to the effect that there are "best available" sources? I mean, yes, a breed registry has a promotional agenda, but much of their material is also going to reflect the expertise of the registry as well. I know you have been through FA before and know where we will get hit, but I also think some of your concerns reflect a level of insider knowledge that may be second-guessing people more than necessary? I'm not saying, I'm just saying...my concern is that so much stuff in books is outdated and I'm concerned that accurate information we know to be accurate is going to get cut in the name of not having a perfect source...oh well. I will just get to sourcing page numbers instead of whining, then we shall see what can be found. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Visions at least is more third party than AHA. Not much different than sourcing TB stuff to Bloodhorse. Tomorrow is my day off, and I'm thinking I"m going to try to relax some. Like I said, the AHA is a fine source for registration rules, etc. We shouldn't have any issues sourcing what Arabians are good at to magazine articles, etc. I think some of Bennett's works would be good for that. And don't bribe me with chocolates, I don't like chocolate! We'll muddle through (tickles Montana). We always do. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've book sourced what I have. Next up is journal articles, etc. Probably sometime this week. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've worked in what I can, as well as reworked some of the sourcing in the History of the breed section. I'm sure I'll keep plugging away at it, but it's getting there. Dana, it's all yours for a bit! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pics

Possible pics. These are older ones I've culled out. Hopefully things will calm down some next week so we can get more shots. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Here's my question: Which images should we replace, what images may be missing, etc.? I realize that the lead image should ideally be facing the other direction, but other than that, is there really a problem with it? (Standstill halter shot may be preferable, but do you have one...?) Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL.. I picked trotting ones because the current one is trotting. Let me check, but I'm pretty sure I have an outside stand up shot. (Nope, don't) I have head shots too. Standing halter shots are easy to deal with, Monday we take the bay halter mare out and shoot her next to some greenery. Want handler in the shot or not? I can guarantee you that they WILL ding on the photo going out of the article. It's in the MOS, mores the pity, so we need to have the image going into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the only gripe will be the horse going in the wrong direction, and I know they don't want you to flip photos, lordy that is just dumb. Sigh. Either a good trotting shot with a LOT of nice impulsion or a good standup clearly showing breed standard would be good. The standup probably easier to get. We also could use an outstanding head shot of a nice, typy horse somewhere in the characteristics section, we don't have a good head shot. Montanabw^(talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't say I agreed with the issue (I don't, actually) but rather than get involved in minute MOS discussions, I'd rather .. oh...write articles! I'll see what we can do this week. (I'm pooped after clipping a baby and doing pasture trims yesterday). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If that chestnut at the end of the top row didn't have a wry tail carriage, I'd say that one would work. Or if the one of the bay on the bottom just had the better angle and lighting of the one of the chestnut. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We're going to take the bay mare out tomorrow and oil her up and put one of the fancy new style "desert" halters on her and stand her up pretty. That'll give us a good nice shot. (And no making fun of the chestnut, I think we're breeding to him next year, he's pretty spiffy!) Keep in mind these are my culls, the ones that the clients didn't want. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

That's what we got this morning. Won't have time for anything else until after the middle of the month. Regionals are next week. Going to have to live with the splint boots, mare is too expensive to be out of her stall without them, especially this close to Regionals, when she's showing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(whimpering with delight) YUMMY! Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

SCID figures

Hm. We can go two ways. We can quote both the older study and the newer study, or we can leave the percentages out all together. I just found the info and threw it in (grins) Since we have the guy at the TB FAC wanting values of the horses, I figure any data could be asked for! It's up to ya'll, really. Otherwise, things are looking pretty good on the article front. I figure Montana will tweak my writing to death (as it deserves). Still a few sources that need to be replaced, and then a pretty thorough copy edit. (Montana, you're really good at that, btw!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I say toss the SCID stats entirely, but if someone at FA wants them later, we can keep them handy and maybe note the 8-25% range if we need to (three studies, actually, if you count VetGen). I'll be adding in Upton page numbers sometime soon. I have the book out and am carrying it with me as a constant reminder to get on it! I'll also add Wentworth after I add Upton. (Wentworth is too heavy to carry around!) Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That works. If you don't get it out, I will later tonight. We're going into "town" for some shopping. (I feel like such the ranch hand saying that...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tech glitch

The templates are probably the cause of this, but note footnote 6, which is the USEF rule book, used at least three times-- the first two times, cites a and b, correctly go to rule 102 the breed standard), but if you look at the footnote that is at c, it actually cites rule 112 (even though all three go to the same pef file on the web, it's a LOOOONG file so the rule breakdowns are helpful). I made this a different cite, but the templates are being too helpful and citing all three to 102 anyway. Any ideas how to fix that glitch? Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me look at it real quick. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me the urls that lead direct to rule 102 and rule 112? When I click on the link it takes me to the first page of the rule book, not to either rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, it's all one big file. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New source

I just picked up: Google books entry for this book:

• Derry, Margaret Elsinor (2003). Bred for perfection: shorthorn cattle, collies, and arabian horses since 1800. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7344-4.

Looks like it'll have a lot of good information in it for us. Especially on the impact of the great tax bubble of the 80's. Will be working on getting the data into the article over the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of it. May be interesting in terms of stuff discussed. Do give us a heads up of anything of particular interest! Someone noted it as having some material that may be useful in other articles, including the one I started on Ali Pasha Sherif (note talk page of that article). Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated what I can in. Some of it is in such detail that it'd be better in daughter articles, if we ever create them. I'll try to get the Ali Pasha Sherif stuff into the article when I get home. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason we're using two book sources for some of the facts (especially some of the ones that Ealdgyth put in earlier)? IMO, it seems to be over-citation, but maybe there's something I'm missing... Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, it's the two of them backing up each other. Some of these books are from more obscure publishers, and having two book cites helps. Not everyone knows that Gladys Brown is an Arabian expert, for example. Or that Deb Bennett is one of the best breed/conformation experts around. Double citing isn't totally frowned on, especially in more obscure areas, when you're dealing with publishers other editors may not have heard of. A couple of them were because I was combining two bits of information into one sentence, but there wasn't a good place to stick a footnote tag. (I don't like sticking them randomly in the middle of sentences, I try to stick them after phrases or at least commas). IN those cases, the two cites combined cover all the information in the sentence. Make more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you for the quick response and patient explanation :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like what's going on! And I agree with Ealdgyth's formatting and commentary. (By the way I have the new GBE biography which includes many of her old AHW articles, haven't finished it yet. Would she herself be of sufficient notability for an article??) FYI, a second way to do multiple sources at the end of a sentence is to list both together in one footnote with a <br> command between them. I personally don't care which is used, two footnotes is fine with me, but in the great edit war that went to mediation over at chaps over the pronunciation issue, we had one bit that had multiple sources and that format was what we all settled on rather than listing five or six footnotes. By the way, I have had the Upton book in my briefcase for something like three weeks, hoping one of these days I'm going to get sick of hauling it around and actually paginate those sources! LOL! I also have Lady Wentworth's book sitting by my computer spot at home, nagging me...of course, Tuesday night my hard drive died, so until they replace it (luckily computer is under warranty) I'm begging and borrowing technology...arrgh!!!

On a separate note, any ideas on "daughter" articles?? Also, if that Derry book mentions other Arabian stuff, would any of it be good in Crabbet Arabian Stud or in the biographic articles about Ali Pasha Sherif's Arabian breeding predecessors in Egypt (Muhammad Ali Pasha and Abbas Pasha both have articles, but not under those names, see the Ali Pasha one for links)? Or the Marbach Stud article? There are also bios of Kellogg, Henry Babson, and Homer Davenport if that matters...

Holy god, it's only when looking at this article grow one realises how much more can go it...thinking of notable or influential horses, Skowronek is mentioned but..there's Hadban Enzahi, Aswan, fabulous Fadjur etc. I guess the next step is daughter articles on eg Arabian Horse in America, x in Australia etc. A daughter page on Egyptian Arabians could allow mention of many of the notable ones there Ansata Ibn Halima etc. and the Aswan story. The Australian Stuff could be expanded on a daughter article -[1], Ralvon Pilgrim was a world champion. Aargh...actually an Egyptian arabian page would be a great linking one next up.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• The size of the article is such that daughter articles are required. What would an egyptian one be called - Arabian horse in Egypt - of Egypt, - from Egypt? Egyptian strain (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that while the article is long, it isn't out of hand compared to the other good articles on other breeds, it has been accepted as a good article at this length, and while I am open to ideas, I have a hard time seeing where to break out the existing sections yet. The American section arguably could break free due to length alone, but as the USA has the largest Arabian population in the world, I think the longer section in the main article is warranted. The stuff I've found on Australian Arabs is mostly history of what horses were imported when, which pretty much puts me to sleep (it does for USA imports too, mostly). That section would be nice to add another paragraph, maybe. A section on Brazil might be nice, as there is a huge South American presence these days. The Upton book has 2-3 pages on just about every country in the world that has Arabians in it today, but after awhile it gets old -- page after page of "this rich person in this small nation bought a bunch of Arabians from the USA and Germany/Poland/Egypt/ and is now trying to create his own superhorse in the grand tradition of the great schmuckity-schmuck." Yawn...

As for "daughter" articles, I think articles on individual horses and breeding operations of significance are appropriate, and we are already doing them (linking all to the Arabian and Part-Arabian horses category) and CERTAINLY could do more. But I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to more than the barest minimum mention in this article of individual horses -- once that laundry list starts, it grows to hundreds. We mention a few here when they are of unique historical importance (like Hector in Australia or Leopard in the USA), but frankly, no, I don't want to even go down that road of listing horse just because someone thinks they are nice (just for instance, we can't mention Fadjur without mentioning Khemosabi, at which point someone will want to discuss Bask, then why not Raffles and Raseyn, and oh, aren't we leaving out this year's national champion in the US, but that's US-centric, so let's mention the Polish national champion, the French national champion, oh and why are we leaving out the mares? You see, it NEVER ends!) Sorry to be crabby, but the breed article with the endless lists of "famous horses of our breed" are my pet peeve. At best, they are laundry lists and fodder for edit wars, at worst, they are free advertising. Nope, nope, nope ! (smiling humbly!)

I also am very hesitant (short of vehemently opposed, but VERY VERY VERY hesitant) to get into the whole "Egyptian"/"Polish"/"Spanish"/"Crabbet" what-have-you game too. Another "once you start, it never ends" thing, plus the bloodlines are actually so complicated to sort out these days, it all depends on which club you join. Crabbet or "CMK"? Korona or "straight Polish"? Asil Arabian or Pyramid Society (Egyptian)? Al Khamsa or "Blue List/Blue Star"? And why won't the Pyramid society admit all the Al Khamsa horses and vice-versa? These people make me want to rip my hair out!

I think the same basic concept - discussing different types of Arabian bloodlines - can be done - and done better - by writing separate articles about the most significant breeders/farms and about the significant horses. We have an article on the Crabbet Arabian Stud and on Ali Pasha Sherif. We have Marbach stud and Henry Babson, just as examples. We have articles on the horses and can have more (I think there is well over a couple hundred individual Thoroughbred articles) I think most of what needs to be said about Crabbet horses can be said in the Crabbet article, and if more needs to be said about "Egyptian" Arabians beyond adding to the Ali Pasha Sharif article, another article on the RAS/EAO could be written. Maybe there is another way to do it, but the Egyptian stuff in particular is a political land mine. Asil Arabians versus WAHO versus the Pyramid Society definitions of what is a "straight Egyptian" or a "purebred" Arabian make my eyes cross, and I have also spent waaayyy too much of my time deleting "Egyptian Arabian" as a separate breed every time it pops up in the list of horse breeds because some sub-sect likes to claim they are the only "real" purebreds (except the Al Khamsa people claim THEY have the only real purebreds, but the Blue Star people claim the Al Khamsa horses aren't even pure enough! ARRGH!). We already have Al Khamsa and that's only because they insist on a sandbox of their own, IMHO. (I actually once had an edit war with someone who insisted that the five mythical mares of Muhammad were real horses and that their Al Khamsa horses traced to them.)

Oh, I am sorry to be so snarky, I know that all sounds pretty harsh, but if there is anything I really care about here, it is trying to keep "my kind of Arabian is better than your kind of Arabian" stuff out of here. Let's take Mesaoud: He is "straight Egyptian," but he was sold to Crabbet, who later sold him to Russia. So is he "Egyptian", "Crabbet," or "Russian?" He is traditionally considered a "Crabbet" horse, but he is also recognized as "straight Egyptian" too. So what to do? He has his own article, I think that is best.

But if gets worse: the Egyptians came to Crabbet and bought back horses of Blunt breeding, such as Sotamm, a "straight Crabbet" Measoud decscendant born in England, but an ancestor of Nazeer who is "straight Egyptian." In the meantime, Lady Wentworth bought a "pure Polish" horse, Skowronek, to cross on her Blunt-bred mares (most with Mesaoud breeding) and then sold "Crabbet" horses to Spain, the USA and Russia, some of which became the ancestors of certain "Straight Spanish" or "Straight Russian" lines. Then the Russians got Aswan from Egypt, then sold horses to Poland, so Polish horses today also have all of that breeding (and is that Russian, Crabbet or Egyptian??), plus the Poles in recent years have also bought a few horses of Egyptian breeding as well as some horses from the USA. So at this point, there is everything mixed up with everything else, other than some of the certifiably "straight" this-or-that stuff, and those gene pools are at high risk (three genetic diseases almost exclusively confined to Egyptian-bred stock, for example).

So if your eyes haven't crossed by this time, do let me know! LOL! I guess I am really hesitant to see a separate article on Egyptian-bred Arabians or any of the other "nation" classifications because I fear it will just start a lot of "Balkanizing," all of which I am going to feel obliged to birddog. (For example, I recently reverted another round of spatting between the two Paso Fino factions, who don't play well with each other and think the other's breeding is junk) :-P Articles on horses and breeders is preferable, it's documentable, avoids more of the commercial advertising and politics, IMHO. I am open to arguments otherwise, but that's my position. Sorry for the long rant. I obviously have "Feelings" about the issue! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. It has been years since I got into this (Arabians), so am a novice but alot of what you are saying is ringing true, and I think expanding Marbach etc. is a good way to go, as is adding something on Brazil for a true world focus and reducing anglophone bias. I am happy to follow your (plural) leads as my expertise is very limited. The article is looking fine. I do like the epic articles, having been involved in getting two joint efforts lion and vampire to Featured status and I can't see how any could have been smaller. This article has a similar feel to it so I have sympathies. We had to mutilate vampire pretty savagely at the crunch time and the other main editor resigned in part due to that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a better way to approach the daughter articles is "Arabians in Europe" "Arabians in North America" (so we don't tick off the Canadians) "Arabians in South America", "Arabians in Africa and the Middle East" "Origins of the Arabian Horse" and then articles on the individual studs, so "Tersk", "Balbona" "Ali Pasha Sherif" "Crabbet" "Borden" "Babson" "EAO" "RAS" etc. etc. And of course, articles on individual horses and breeders. If we stick to "continents" we can probably avoid most of the "my horse is better than your horse" stuff. Btw, the new Derry book has a good bit on the Pritzlaff-Forbis spat over the Pyramid society. The first time I've seen something put down in print in a reliable source... Now I'm debating how brave I feel... do I put it in the Pyramid Society article??? LOL. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I really am not ready to do geographic spinoffs, but if we do, the continent approach is probably as good as any. I'll surf Upton when I get around to paginating and see if I can add a paragraph here on South America (I though about how to divide up this article for two years and am still scratching my head about it, actually). As for the Pyramid stuff, Ealdgyth, how about you email me some of your thoughts and we can bounce the politics around off-wiki for a bit, then when we have some preliminary stuff, bring Dana and Casliber in to see what we've cooked up? And so we DO have a Pyramid Society article already? Hmm. Missed that, or forgot about it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

I'm starting to get a little concerned about the length of the article. Right now, we're at 54.9 KB of readable prose, according to this. According to WP:LENGTH, the ideal length for a long article is 30-50 KB. If the article was going to stay about the length it is right now, I wouldn't really have a problem with it (see Lion for an FA that's above 50 KB), but we seem to be discussing adding some chunks of text in various spots that will continue to raise the amount of readable prose. While I agree that a section on Arabians in South America (and maybe Africa?) would be useful, and needed to cover the subject sufficiently for FA, this will add a fairly significant amount of readable prose to the article.

I'm not suggesting that we not add these sections. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps we work on cutting or transferring existing parts of the article to daughter articles. Some of my suggestions would be:

• Reducing the size of the "Colors" section (and subsections). Possibly by removing some of the information on the definitions of various colors.
• Reducing the size of the "Influences on Other Breeds" section. Yes, the Arabian has been an influence in the creation of pretty much every other breed of light horse. However, the last paragraph on their influence on the Andalusian could probably be cut a bit (and needs better sourcing).
• Moving most of the information in the "Origins" and "Historical Development" sections and subsections to a daughter article, and then only having a brief (maybe 1/4 or 1/2 the length?) summary in this article.
• Moving most of the information from the "In America" section and subsections to a daughter article and only leaving a brief summary here. My thought is to have each continent have its own section about the length that the Australia one is now...one each for S. America, N. America, Australia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, etc.

Feel free to tear these apart or add to them as you want. I'm just tossing them out there as suggestions, because the article is getting a little on the hefty side and there are a few sections that are contributing more to this problem than others. Dana boomer (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aah, now for the heartache. Dana, is there more pertinent material you wanted to add? If not, maybe having a new person go through and copyedit is the next step. This is usually a good way of picking up some redundancies. I am not sure which section immediately springs to mind as I have not read in great detail yet, but I sympathise....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred happens to be 64 KB long, FYI! (And LOL). For now, I'd rather add then cut, other than edits on stuff that is, in fact, bloat. I think that the Influences and History stuff in general absolutely cannot be removed from the main article because these are the things the breed is famous for. I wouldn't personally mind trying to cut down the color stuff a little, but it grew to the size it is because of assorted dipshit edits from others (mostly people who want weird-colored purebreds) that basically resulted in explanations to debunk myths and in the process that had me also rewriting half the coat color articles! LOL! I think there are probably ways to trim some of the color stuff -- some material was already moved to other articles (for example, Sabino horse now has a Sabino in Arabians section), maybe more can be.

I kind of like what we did with Thoroughbred, though Arabians have more international distribution, so inevitably here we would go on a bit more. I personally see very little reason to add tidbits on every nation in the world that happens to have an Arabian horse farm, and I am optimistic that adding a sentence or two about nations with newer but major breeding traditions (Brazil being the biggie) could be done without bloat. ("Africa" is mostly Egypt, which is already there. South Africa has some Arabian breeders, but mostly stock imported from Egypt, nothing original, really. I'd love to do stuff on the Arabian influences on the North African Barb, but I can't find good source material, and the Barb people swear that no Arabian ever crossed their path! LOL!)) The modern Middle East other than a few nations is mostly oil money buying Arabians from Europe, Egypt and the US, and bringing them back to the area, mostly very new breeding programs, little if any Bedouin sources from antiquity left, maybe Syria and possibly a little in Saudi Arabia itself. No one there the equivalent of Ali Pasha Sherif yet.

I think that if anything in here could be broken out, the American section might be doable. I'm not opposed to making the US section shorter by creating a daughter article, keeping length here closer to the Australian one, but there are two aspects to this: one being the Arabian influences on American breeds, which may need to stay here, the other being simply purebred breeding in the US over the last 125 years or so, which may be able to be shortened some and broken out. I do want to avoid too much "Laundry list" stuff that just is PR for each country/breeder/program. (So many books out there are just of who imported what and bred to whom...boring unless it's your thing). Maybe for now we just look at anything in the article that is flat-out bloat and should go anyway, and not worry about breaking out anything until we find we have huge new sections to add? Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Thoroughbred article is 64 KB of wikitext, but it is only 29 KB of what the tool calls "readable text", which is what the WP length guidelines are based on. The Arabian article actually has over 123 KB of wikitext, which is almost twice the length of the TB article.

However, if you feel that we should wait until we're closer to the end of adding, copyediting and tweaking the article to take anything significant out, then I will bow to your judgment. It might be that people at FAC have no problem with the longer length article - but I would hate to wait until we get to FAC and have all of the editors go: "but this article is too long and you need to cut something" and have to do it in a hurry, rather than taking our time and doing it right. This was my main concern that prompted my initial posting.

Ealdgth, do you have an opinion on this? Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm? I'm in Tennessee right now, smack dab in the middle of a country music festival (don't ask how I got here and am stuck here tonight, it's a long story!) Personally, I favor trimming the color section quite a bit. Last I looked at it, a lot of it was pretty much general information that wasn't specific to arabians, so it would be better suited to the color articles, with wikilinking. One thing I did notice is that there's no mention of bloody shoulder/other markings, which are generally only found in Arabians (speaking of breed linked markings... we didn't mention Birdcatcher spots in TBs... oops!). The Arabian article is not quite TOO long, but we need to watch it. Look at Early life and military career of John McCain which is currently a FAC and 41K of prose. I should be home tomorrow, which will make things a bit easier. I'm pretty sure that some ruthless culling can bring the article back down in size some, without sacrificing that much. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...actually there is a short paragraph on the bloody shoulder markings/legend (or at least there was last Thursday, I haven't actually looked at the article in a couple of days), as well as a couple of sentences on the various beliefs about black Arabs. Perhaps these should be combined into one paragraph (they're seperate right now) and maybe expanded, since they're specific to Arabians? I know we're trying to cut the article down rather than expand it, but it might be a thought. Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, the bloody shoulder thing went back and forth between the color section and the mythology section and wherever it is now, it's in there somewhere! LOL! The big thing is just a focus on how there aren't as many colors in Arabians as in other breeds, but that we also have a couple weird ones, (sabino and rabicano), oh and you don't want to hear that one "white" stallion HAS popped up in the breed along with a few of his babies, possibly a sabino-white dominant of some sort, but not sure (was yakking with Countercanter about it on her talk page)...I'm trying to reach the geneticist who did the DNA study and figure out exactly what they decided he is because they called him a "dominant white," but I think that's a lethal, so I sure as heck hope that is just a terminology glitch and what we have is just a really weird sabino, but who knows! Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Things we might need...

Looking at Thoroughbred, the only thing I see missing is something about the numbers of Arabians worldwide, the "Registration, breeding and population" section, which should probably go into the "Modern breeding" section. I'll try to do a copy-edit pass later today, and maybe find data on numbers, if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A long time back someone wanted stats on how the US has the most Arabians, followed by Australia, etc...I couldn't find a good list at the time so had to cut a few statements, so boy, if you can find data, that would be cool! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Color myths

Hi Dana, Just an FYI that I tossed the myth of black-horses-bad-luck stuff because there used to be a nearly identical bit in there that we tossed earlier as verbiage. There ARE better sources for Black being rare (I think GBE actually crunched the percentages based on registration records, but I couldn't find it in "War Horse to Show Horse" so it has to be somewhere else...), the main thing is just that Bay is very dominant in Arabians (something like 60% of all Arabians are bay) and the Agouti gene causing bay is, of course, dominant over black, so it stands to reason this would be the situation.

The other problem is that most alleged "Bedouin beliefs" are either romantic fabrications, total hooey, or at best the views of one particular tribe or another. For example, some alleged myths say that Black horses were special and treasured by Allah, not the opposite! LOL! We also have myths about chestnuts (hot-tempered), Bay (stamina), Grays, etc... the only consistent myth is the "bloody-shoulder" thing about flea-bitten gray mares being extra special, though I've seen multiple variations on that story too. (Some tales, the Bedouin warrior dies, others he lives, sometimes the mare carries him to camp, other times she stands vigil over his dead body, etc...). I've even seen a variation on the Al Khamsa mares that puts them in the time of Christ instead of Muhammad...anyway, the upshot was that the alleged Bedouin mythos on Black got tossed out of the article a while back...and I think I was the party who both inserted and then removed it! :-D Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me to toss the information. Now that you mention it, I think I do remember that we used to have something like it in the article that we tossed. If at some point we can find reliably-sourced percentages, let's add them to the article, but for now what we have should be good. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okies. And your source is better, wasn't sure if it contained the rareness info or just the myth. But if it says black is rare, for whatever reason, it will do. I wonder if we just crunched numbers from datasource would that constitute original research? Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr...what do you mean by "datasource"? Can you link it? Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Datasource and yes, it would be OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is using datasource is subscription only. I forgot about that. Oh well. I just wish I could dig where in the recesses of my brain is the source for the data. Pretty sure it was GBE, but could have been something like and article in AHW from 20 years ago...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)