Talk:Barbaro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barbaro article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing, an attempt to improve Wikipedia articles and content on topics related to the sport of thoroughbred horse racing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Philadelphia
Philadelphia Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] More info

This page needs a huge amount of information added. For instance, what colour was he? Was he a stallion or a gelding? There are innumerable amounts of info to be added. MorwenofLossarnarch 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? Horserasing is just a glorified parlor game.

You must have some parlor.  :) --- How about some more information about these 'super horses'? I find the mention of that topic quite fascinating. FarFromHomeFish 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to read up on some of the all-time great horses, this article is a good place to start. Note that it only covers thoroughbreds. There are a lot of fascinating stories. SubSeven 08:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Was he a stallion or a gelding?" - MorwenofLossarnarch

Since there is still the possibility of his being put out to stud, he obviously can't be a gelding.

[edit] News photo?

It would be good to have a photo of Barbaro/Prado just after the fracture... I haven't kept up with copyright issues. Are online newspaper photos still considered Fair Use? If so, I have a good one from the Baltimore Sun. JDG 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right, Left

I don't know what vantage point the captions are referring to... but it was definitely his right leg that was injured.. but the arrow is pointing to his left, and the 2nd picture doesn't show him favoring that leg..

That's because he was still running Punk18

Actually, the arrow is pointing to his right leg. Since he is facing forward, the arrow is on the left. — TheKMantalk 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

He may be looking at the wrong horse. Barbaro is the one in back whose jockey has green sleeves.--Syd Henderson 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] life threatening injury?

Where is the life threat from a broken leg, other than blood loss? Is it different for horses than for humans? Also, why is it that other horses with comparable injuries are usually put down, while Barbaro was not? Is it because of the potential future stud fees? That seems cold. Phr (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Horses are fairly heavy animals, and cannot stand on three legs alone without causing injury to those legs. Also, horses are unable to lay down for long periods of time without causing internal injuries. Personally, I think Barbaro was spared euthanasia for several reasons: after the injury he was able to remain standing and calm, the injury occured on a nationally televised race, he was a Kentucky Derby winner, and yes, he was definitely worth keeping alive for the stud fees. — TheKMantalk 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles following the injury and the surgery (including those stating that his chances of survival following surgery were 50-50, which as far as I know is still true), have cited both the risk of internal injury (as TheKMan states), and more immediately, the risk of infection. The latter risk is somewhat reduced in Barbaro's case because his skin was not broken while at the race track, but even the incisions made in the "sterile" surgical environment pose a risk. I also read somewhere that due to the size of the animal, the amount of antibiotics needed to reduce the risk of infection would themselves pose a medical risk to the horse. Sadly, these magnificent animals are also very fragile because they cannot sit or lie down for extended periods, and therefore are very vulnerable when their legs are injured. 6SJ7 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I always wondered about this too -- horses were always being put down for broken legs but no one ever explained why. Recent news reports in the last couple of days have (finally) gone into detail regarding the two major problems. First, a horse's circulatory system apparently only functions properly when their weight is distributed on all four feet. Second, the additional weight on the compensating foot (in Barbaro's case, the left one) can cause a very serious complication called laminitis which results in loss of the hoof and a great deal of pain. Bookgrrl 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an outstanding "Explainer" article from Slate that does an excellent job answering this very question: [1] —Xanderer 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cause?

Didn't the vets and race officials find out how Barbaro injured himself? I think I saw an article stating that they saw Brother Derek's front leg trip Barbaro up. Punk18

This idea that contact with Brother Derek led Barbaro to take the bad step that led to his breakdown is simply one person's theory. Given that, I think it gets far too much play in the article. At least, it should be noted that this is speculation by a single official. --JayareIL 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

69.228.34.119 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)The shift of "blame" for the accident to contact with Brother Derek seems an attempt of the Pimlico officials to dodge (rather spurious) allegations that the track vet did not really examine the horse after the false start. There is no footage that shows this alleged contact, no film with camera angles capable of showing such contact, and, most importantly, neither jockey thinks it happened either.

[edit] I just don't know sometimes

Today someone added a paragraph about Barbaro's latest setbacks, including the comment that he is still not "out of the woods", and ending with this sentence:

His appetite remains strong and he remains as active as he can under the circumstances, however, since his value as a stud remains tied to his ability to mount a female in a natural way, the healing of his leg is necessary for the owners to capitalize on this animal's post race career value.

--I thought that natural breeding wasn't used anymore, because of the risk to the stallion. Wouldn't they use artificial insemination? Or is that needed for the collection too. --Naelphin 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In this breed, this is indeed a requirement. And natural breeding still occurs often, although less and less with the more valuable stallions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Barbaro is "only" a horse and therefore not necessarily entitled to the same "sensitivity" as a human being, but in light of the fact that his life is still in danger, do we really need to be speculating on his future ability to "get it on" with female horses? Or perhaps more to the point, on his monetary value in the future? Can we see if he survives first? 6SJ7 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbaro watch

We do not need the day-by-day report. Let us sum up what happened immedidately after the injury and *sigh*, the up-to-day status. This has far too newsy a feel to it. We do not know if this vigil we are keeping a death watch or not.

If I had my druthers, I think it would be better if we imposed a rule on ourselves like: "No information that is less than 3 days old". In other words: no daily status. Such information is not going to survive in the long run so it is not encyclopedic. I will be sorry if the horse does not live out the month, BUT, we need to keep things in perspective that supposedly, "Wikipeida is not a newspaper." Except that our Main Page has an "In the News" section (which I have always thought is a bad idea because it encourages such short-term thinking).

If you ever looked at Source Watch, you will see that it is not very good prose because it often reduced down to just a string of quotes. Wikipedia is supposed to speak in its own authoritative voice and procse and provide supporting documentation via footnotes. -- 75.26.3.87 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is one thing we should get rid of, it is all of this speculation. If the vet said one day that the horse's prognosis is bad and the next day the horse is doing fine, then the vet was maybe correct for that day, but in the long run, he was wrong. Tough luck. One of our jobs is to smooth out these ups and downs if there is any possibility that the vet was wrong. The vet is only human. Without a meter like a stock market ticker on the horse's prognosis, we have to chaulk up these dramatic press conferences to human error (and the limitations of technology and human ability) and move on. -- 75.26.3.87 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to report in its own authoritative voice. If info is learned after the fact, then just plow it back into the narrative, rather than all these silly quotes. -- 75.26.3.87 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, but too ill to go into all the reasons why... It's valuable to keep a running tally on events. Then someone will come along (as you just did) and have all the material to build a good, detailed synopsis. And in the meantime, everybody stays informed... You have to get used to the fact that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Not sure exactly what it is, but the old encyclopedia label is at this point just a convenient moniker. We're more like a MegaCompendium, a repository of nearly everything. That's our role and you may as well forget about fighting it... Your current version is short and to the point, yet so much is lost. I'm weighing whether to bring it back to the day-to-day format. JDG 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Added: Yes, I see that you did much more than dispense with the "Barbaro Watch". You blew away many interesting facts, statements and descriptions, I suppose under the banner of "conciseness". Well, now it's concise... and lifeless. We'll see how motivated I am tomorrow. JDG
What is the title of the article? It is about one animal. It not about the vet, or the trainer, or the owner or the jockey, or any of the other large cast of characters surrounding this beast. It is about Barbaro. You should quote zero people about this animal. Wikipedia should speak in its own voice. Otherwise, this place is just Oprah, Jerry Springer, game shows and the rest of the schlock you see on daytime TV. -- 64.175.41.243 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Er, the article about Mount Everest goes into considerable detail about people who have climbed it. It's not just about the mountain. An article about the U.S.S. Enterprise from Star Trek, that was purely about the ship and didn't mention Captain Kirk, would be pretty silly too. Phr (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] semi protection

Given the revert war/blanking from these IP's, I requested semi protection at WP:RPP. I hope that was appropriate. Phr (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor in question is Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a banned editor with a history of editing despite of that. I have semiptotected the page because of that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern for Barbaro

Of course, someday we will have to change the tense of the verbs to past tense. Naturally, we all hope that Barbero does survive and that the editing of that section will be easy, but it seems we have a difficult wait ahead of us. AP reported two hours ago that Barbaro has good night, remains stable -- 64.175.41.243 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one minds that I added Your Host to this section. It might give people hope for Barbaro to know that another horse survived as severe an injury with even less of chance. I also thought it was appropriate to connect these two horses for anyone with an interest in the lives of race horses. Not only did Your Host make it, he sired Kelso! --Ki Longfellow 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern for Barbaro

See folks? "Concern for Barbaro" is not encyclopedic. It is merely contemporary fluff — it does not stand the test of time. And the writing in that section was beautiful. But to any mind with the more mature judement than a 14-year-old girl, it was misguided. Thems the breaks. BTW: The good reports just keep on coming in: Barbaro has new growth in left hoof but NPOV sez: How nice, but so what? -- 64.175.41.143 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first-person bit removed

Approximately 130 meters into the race, just before the sixteenth pole, there was accidental contact between Barbaro and opposing horse Brother Derek. Barbaro drifted out just as Brother Derek was closing the margin. Brother Derek extended his right front leg and, as can best be determined, it hit Barbaro's right hind. This apparently touched off the "bad step" leading to Barbaro's injury. Barbaro's head immediately reared up as he had sustained fractures above and below his right hind ankle. His right hind leg suddenly failed to support his weight.<insert ref here /> The preceding explanation has not been confirmed by anyone outside of Pimlico as far as I am aware. It is simply one of many possible explanations for what occured, and it is an explanation that most people have discounted.

Hi, emphasis is mine. I have removed the bold bit from the article, because of its style. If someone who's knowledgeable could rewrite it and add it back (or make the article more NPOV) please feel free to do so. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV is still evidenced in that section, I think. I tried to remove it. Evan Donovan 00:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the Dog Food reference

Remove the Dog Food reference.

[edit] An "educational" section

This article might benefit from a paragraph that discusses the larger truths that the physician faces in managing a horse injury like this. The issues seem to be:

  • pain management
  • horse mobility
  • balance of weight between the legs

Also, it has been stressed recently that the horses condition is like a house of cards: if only one leg fails entirely and that leg cannot be maintained to bear at least some weight, then all hope for a dignified life for the animal is lost because, even though he can be kept alive "in bed", he will either die of pnuemonia, requiring constant pain and infection suppression, or he will live until his other legs atrophy. You can have a "lame" horse with a bad foot, but there is no such thing as a three-legged horse in the way that we occasionally have seen three-legged dogs. That is the Nature of the beast. We should somehow inform the reader of these truths (I am not really qualified, but there has got to be a "horse person" or vet who can competently describe the situation). In past eras, that is why they simply shot horses with a broken leg: if this had happened thrity years ago, then such a horse might have simply been put down that day. -- 71.141.246.35 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more quotes!

Please do not report this story in quotes. It has suffered from "quote-itis" since the horse broke its leg. Report facts in Wikipedia's own authentic voice and point to supporting documents. And use the <ref> tags for links in the prose. -- 71.141.224.144 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction of Connections Section

You state that the owners of Barbaro are from "Edgemont", in Delaware County, PA. The actual spelling of the town is "Edgmont". There is only one "e" in the name. I know it looks weird, but I'm from there, so I promise you- it's Edgmont.

[edit] 8 months in ICU

8 months in a equine "ICU" is an extraordinarily large amount of effort to save any one horse. The lead section should probably note this, since the average reader might not be aware of this fact. -- 199.33.32.40 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outpouring of emotion

Can we get that "emotion" stuff in one place? It is currently both in Trivia and "public reaction". -- 199.33.32.40 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Reaction Section

I added a paragraph that mentions Deadspin and the various other sources of negativity towards Barbaro, his doctor, his owners and his supporters. I think it's very balanced. Catherine Huebscher 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeadSpin Trolls on this Article

The Deadspin blog sports page has been planting various covert links to their nasty and insulting articles on Barbaro. Most of what they write celebrates barbaro's pain and death with low brow racist, sexist frat boy 'sensibility.' Please delete anything they leave here including 'Sports human of the year award' and links to their putrid blogs which they had at the top of external links.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine Huebscher (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


low brow racist, sexist frat boy sensibility. Deadspin doesn't care about Bay horses. Zzz345zzZ 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, then take your nasty links about Barbaro and your poorly written articles and leave wikipedia. Deadspin has a typical post modern way of being satrical; tired jokes and an 'I only grew up with Mtv and vh1' sense of pop culture. My own opinion about Deadspin aside, you have no right to be putting your joke honors on this article, just the fact that you placed a link at the top of externals shows how unprofessional you are. Remark after remark about Barbaro on your site is nasty and just reeks of post- modernism. Their is a paucity of intellect not to mention good sportsmanship eg: An entire blog was spent insulting the messages left at New Bolton Center by Barbaro's well wishers-get a life many of you said.Ha! Catherine Huebscher 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not just one post, but many. And it is important to note that it is not the actual horse that is being made fun of, but the crazies who think the horse can read all the cards that you send him, or figure out how to work the internet to visit his message board. Maybe you people should spend more time sending letters to actual PEOPLE who can read and appreciate them instead of a horse who's only thoughts are food, run, and mares. The only reason the owners kept this horse alive for months suffering in a giant sling was to make more money, not out of the kindness of their hearts. As far as a "joke honor", it is just as real as the Time Person of the Year, and you have no business deciding which honors are deemed "worthy". Unlike you, I do not pretend to be a "professional", and nobody editing Wikipedia is, as none of us get paid for the job. I am just trying to give your beloved horse the credit he is due.Zzz345zzZ 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Horses can't read??? Wahkeenah 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your squalid online rag means nothing outside of the keg parties and girl gone wild fans and has no place on this article along side the Kentucky Derby honors. Dead spin has no status-have some b*lls and get attention another way without exploitation. Your above diatribe just proves how fixated you are on Barbaro anyway and proves you need to elsewhere. YOU ARE NOT A LEGITIMATE MAGAZINE! NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT DEADSPIN and NO ONE CARES! Catherine Huebscher 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it's in the Big Time now. It has its own article in wikipedia. I wonder who wrote that article. Surely not somebody promoting the page? That never happens. Wahkeenah 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

6 million unique page visits a month. Not exactly unknown. Has been written about and acclaimed in many more mainstream publications such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated. That would lend a note to some of its credibility. Get with the times, the internet and blogs are the wave of the future while hardcope newspapers and magazines are on the way out. Just ask Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton who announced their candidacy via blog. Or Speaker Pelosi who had an exclusive press conference with ONLY online bloggers invited. Look at all the fun things you can learn at keg parties and by watching girls gone wild 4 hours a day. SPRING BREAK CANCUN 07 NO REGRETS!!!22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 6 million a month. But how many come back for a second look? Wahkeenah 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason Hillary and Barack went to websites was to give Internet nerds the illusion of personal contact. It's also probably the only venue where the potential voters might not have already decided whether they plan to vote for them or not. Wahkeenah 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"And it is important to note that it is not the actual horse that is being made fun of." No, a cheap photoshoped picture of Barbaro surrounded by Elmer's glue angels is not making fun of him. Catherine Huebscher 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

shrug: That's not a legitimate edit, I agree. However, an award given by Deadspin.com is slightly different. While you may disagree it, this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal opinions. Deadspin, whether you like them or not, is a legitimate sports website, which has been featured in Sports Illustrated and ESPN. Will Leitch, the editor, is the author of two novels and has written for the New York Times. A.J. Daulerino is filing reports from the Super Bowl. Whatever you may think of their material, it's really irrelevant. It's part of the story. Your personal opinions are not as important as presenting a complete picture.
The issue is not how many web-hits it gets or how many mentions in, or connections to, credible sources it has. It's a comedic site and the award was tongue-in-cheek, and is not encyclopedic. For the record, other awards from far more well-known sources are not encyclopedic, either: Kieth Olbermann's nightly array of awards on MSNBC or Howard Stern's F-Emmies . . . entertaining and funny, but not encyclopedic despite the fact that both are classified (really) as news programs. Saying it's not encyclopedic is not disrespectful to the site or to the credibility of the editors - it just means that the reference is simply out of place here. The award is clearly not intended to legitimately honor the subject of this article. On another note, I don't think it would be disrespectful to the horse to include a "controversies" section in the article, especially since it has been widely noted that most often, such an injury would result in a much earlier euthenasia. I think it merits a discussion on why this situation was different and the resulting debate, particularly in light of the outcome. Two sentences in the "Public Reaction" section seems inadequate. Mdeaton 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't know DeadSpin from a hole in the ground and I'm an avid sports fan, but I totally support their opinion that this Barbaro thing is completely stupid. Think about the loads of money that have been poured into a horse and the gambling industry. If you were told that millions and millions of dollars could be spent on improving schools, finding a cure for cancer, funding charities or supporting gambling, I can tell you that you would want any alternative than fueling gambling. If you think that horse racing is about the beauty of the horses, good for you but you are sorely mistaken, it's about making money baby. I have to say I respect that the horse owners are business people but I really feel that the money and attention given to this issue is just rediculous. As a friend put it to me, "Barbaro was a great horse with a lot of love," I say "phooey." The fact that the American public would rather support the sensationalized image of a horse that is a figurehead for business than support social progress or even, hell a pool in my backyard, at least that will satisfy my friends and I and not make people go bankrupt on bad bets.... In the context of this article, however, I feel that to uphold Wikipedia's pillars, if this article is going to praise Barbaro, it should be open to criticism of the horse and its rehabilition. Stephen 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I love how intimidated men are by Barbaro, its so pathetic! You forgot to mention the war in Iraq, guess what ? People like variety of things and horses happen to be one of them. Like Sea Biscuit, Misty etc Barbaro is now a legend. Deadspin is a lowgrade operation with little history and no class, its down there with Maxin, FHM and John Rocker, Deadspin's great Beacon of racist hope. Deadspin honors do not belong next to storied sport honors like the Kentucky Derby. The way these boys defend Deadspin is so pitiful. It reminds me of the dumb jock/coach syndrome in High School. Catherine Huebscher 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is intimidated by a horse. It was terrible watching the preakness (i was there) while Barbaro cam up lame with a broken leg. It was worse seeing him kept alive and in pain only for the selfish reasons of the people around him. If you knew anything about the internet, you would know that Gawker Media is the most powerful blogging community on the web. John Rocker has also been a target of the Deadspin community for his ridiculous antics, and you can be assured that if people had set up a messageboard sending words of encouragement to him, he would be mentioned and mocked more. As far as the "little history" goes, I din't really see how that is important. Yes the Run for the Roses is very old, yes it is a great honor. But over 125 horses have also won the honor. Barbaro is the only horse to ever win the SHOTY, which is notable, and most likely will be the only one ever. The way these old ladies defend Barbaro is so pitiful. It reminds me of the old insane cat lady from down the street.Zzz345zzZ 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I now realize how powerful they are but online blog magazines simply don't have the established status as awards givers to be alongside Barbaro's racing honors-not yet anyway. The next decade or so I'm sure will see a huge shift towards online reality but while ball sports might be largely there already, old school sports like horse racing are still very much about the old school. If you want to add Sportshuman Award thingy into the public reaction section then okay but it was not an award given by decent,classy people. Deadspin can't be taken seriously if they are publishing photoshop glue angels alongside Barbaro and then claim they have respect for 'the horse.' That whole "I want it both ways blunt culture" is too flightly and anti-intellectual. (eg: Deadspins' "Negro Bowl") Deadspin needs to own what they do and take responsibility for the fact they are basicallly just ball loving goofballs. It was very sneaky of them to come on to this article and put a link to their mag at the top of the External links. Sneaky denotes immaturity.... AND OMG!! A lot of Barbaro's fans are really hot, did you notice my work on the Russ Meyer article? I practically wrote that whole thing because I have the measurements to understand his work-I'm very sexy and beautiful and I'm sought after on YouTube! I'm happy with the additions to the public reaction section and would like to call a truce on this and wish everyone well. Catherine Huebscher 12:15, Feb 1 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laminitis the night before he was euthanized

Please listen to DR. Richardson at today's press conference and you will know the complete story about why he was put down- BARBARO HAD LAMINITIS IN BOTH FRONT LEGS! I'm going to change it again, please do not erase!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catherine Huebscher (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Needs to be encyclopedic

I know this is an emotional time for Barbaro's fans and well-wishers, but we must keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic - recent changes have made the article more of an essay or even a eulogy than an encyclopedia entry. The emotion is understandable as it has only been one day, but remember that now is when the article is the most visible. Mdeaton 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see someone corrected the above-mentioned section. Much better. I also removed the "equine enthusists were shocked" in the introduction - - I doubt anyone could realistically be shocked at the outcome. Mdeaton 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just a bloody horse, for God's sake. They would have put it down at the racetrack, but they were hoping for a chance at stud fees. Wahkeenah 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summation of medical costs requested

Can someone drum up information on how much medical care and how much it cost to try to save this horse? I am not asking for a rationalization, just information. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it was probably a lot more than whatever it would cost to treat 100 starving african kids with AIDS infections for a year. Just sayin'. --Leperflesh 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Alot more than it would cost to feed and house some American homeless.Zzz345zzZ 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, they had insurance in the millions against his loss as a racer or stud, so they could have afforded themselves to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars without difficulty. From
Even if you question whether the tens of thousands of dollars that Barbaro's owners, Roy and Gretchen Jackson, spent on his medical care was worth it,...
From this TIME article: Barbaro: Was It All Worth It? published Jan. 29, 2007

-- 199.33.32.40 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I think that we will have to keep an eye on how this animal's death might change the sport. Nothing has happened yet, but this article seems like a thoughtful musing: Barbaro's death: Equine beauty meets harsh reality Jan. 30, 2007 -- 199.33.32.40 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • For one thing, it might make owners more likely to put them down right away and save the expense. A foal and his money are soon parted. Wahkeenah 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Injury section

This needs to be cleaned up. Right now it reads like a blog of the horse's day to day checkups. Something that weeds out the more useless info and keeps the major difficulties needs to be done. Zzz345zzZ 06:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of things that should be weeded out. [[User:# Catherine Huebscher|# Catherine Huebscher]] 06:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Feel free to help please help improve the article, so readers can have a better understanding of the topic at hand. The major problems should be mentioned while smaller details left to external links. Zzz345zzZ 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I have temporarily protected this page due to pretty out of control edit warring over the inclusion of Deadspin's award.

Please discuss the issue here by presenting reasons based on our policies and guidelines, rather than with accusations of trolling or vandalism. Obviously, this is not simple IP vandalism or spam, but a content dispute. Please take the next couple of hours to work this out. Or at least take a break to cool down for a bit. Kafziel Talk 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like the public reactions section to be restored since it was vandalized recently and many worked very hard on it. It's also a key part of Barbaro's history, the fact there are those who adore his memory and also deride it.If wiki feels the Deadspin award merits inclusion than so be it but without the public reaction section it makes no sense.User:Catherine Huebscher
When was that removed? Can you provide a diff so I can see what you mean? I don't see that section in that last several versions. Kafziel Talk 06:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I found it, here. Looks like aside from some copyedit-type changes, it's just the section header that was removed, not the content. That can always be put back in, no problem. Kafziel Talk 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks User:Catherine Huebscher
The only argument I have heard so far regarding the removal of the Sports Human of the Year Award, is because it doesn't belong next to "storied honors" such as the Kentucky Derby since it is a "satire". While I acknowledge that the Run for the Roses is indeed older, and more prestigious than the SHOTY, this is not reason enough to eliminate the latter award from the article entirely. The Oscar, awarded annually to the best of film industry, is almost as old and many consider it more prestigious than the Kentucky Derby, yet it stands alongside the Razzie Awards, an annual award given to the worst of the film industry, in many actors' and directors' pages in Wikipedia now. In addition, I would argue that the SHOTY is not, in fact, a "satire award". It is awarded to the biggest newsmakers and subjects of the longest running stories. Barbaro, but mostly his devoted fans, became such a sensation at Deadspin, that articles and threads are still popping up today, months after he won the Derby.Zzz345zzZ 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I had never heard of Deadspin until yesterday, but it seems to be a notable (though irreverent) sports site, so I tend to agree that it should be included. We don't need to worry about hurting Barbaro's feelings. Any other thoughts? Judging from the edits last night, there are a few editors on both sides of the fence here. Kafziel Talk 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There really aren't that many editors in favor of removing the link. Two users have removed the link. One was Peakdetector, who has vandalized Deadspin several times (take note of the modified links!), as well as various other articles, and whose other contributions don't generally paint a picture of a user editing in good faith.

The other user, User:Catherine Huebscher, removed the link with the comments "WIKIPEDIA DECIDED THIS WAS A SATIRE HONOR AND NOT APPLICAPLE TAKE YOUR GARBAGE ELSEWHERE TWEEZERS" and "Deadspin trolls need to read the discussion page and get a life.Wiki watch please intervene". Regardless of whether the link is actually worthwhile or not, referring to other editors as "tweezers" and "Deadspin trolls" isn't the right way to make changes. (I have never visited Deadspin, by the way - in fact, I'd never heard of it before this. Please assume good faith.) Zetawoof(ζ) 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its pretty much been these two users reverting or just outright vandalizing Barbaro and Deadspin related articles. Keep a special eye on [[User talk:Peakdetector] who has been warned of vandalism several times and nominated various articles for deletion out of spite. Any more vandalism on his/her part should end in some type of suspension, I believe. Also I would appreciate it if User:Catherine Huebscher stops talking about her "perfect hourglass figure" and "large breast size". It's a little inappropriate. 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not too worried about the comments made up to this point. Most of that seems to be settled down. I'm more concerned about whether it's notable enough for inclusion. As I said, I'm leaning toward a yes, and I haven't heard any evidence at all for why it shouldn't be included so I'd say at this point it can go back in. If someone removes it, please don't put it back without discussing it further. Let's not have another edit war. Kafziel Talk 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets just make sure that the two commenters we mentioned above don't go back to their ways of removing without reason. 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who are against the SHOTY award, because IMHO it's a clear case of satire and/or mockery. The language used in describing the SHOTY award was at times POV as well. IMHO SHOTY does not belong at the Barbaro article, although it could be allowed to stay at the Deadspin article if it's clearly indicated that it is a satire, and not a prestigeous award. --Kjoonlee 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some food for thought:
  • Why did Deadspin make fun of Barbaro and his fans if they were going to give him an award?
  • What sort of honor or prestige does the SHOTY award bestow on its winner?
  • Why had the language used to describe SHOTY been biased against Barbaro's fans?
--Kjoonlee 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know much about the issue itself, just how it pertains to Wikipedia policy. I can say that the second question isn't really valid; it doesn't have to bestow prestige to be included. It's no different than the Razzies or the Ig Nobel Prize. I suppose we could create an entire separate section for it, but I think that would be giving it more attention than it deserves.
As for the rest, the tone and bias of the people who give out the "award" doesn't necessarily carry over into our reporting of it. A biased or mocking award doesn't necessarily make it less notable. Kafziel Talk 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The second question is valid because the inclusion of SHOTY would be off-topic in a section on honorable awards, called "Honors", as you admit. Furthermore, there already is a section that could include SHOTY, the section on public reactions. 81.235.40.198 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I NEVER said my figure was perfect! Okay I understand your points and I was attacked rabidly by Deadspin fans who were asking me to reveal personal details about my private life so I was fighting back which I now realize was a mistake that will not be repeated. I have not been on Deadspin's article in days and have never vandalized it! If SHOTY award ends up in the permanent honors then I think a link on the public reaction section to the photoshopped pic of Barbaro on Deadspin surrounded by glue angels is warranted. This is not the same as The Razzies, Deadspin does not have decades of satirical history to throw it's weight around with. SHOTY is like the Razzies if the Razzies were just getting going, this will open the door to many other joke awards from young and fledgling websites.The entire reason I even heard of Deadspin was because my mother googled her FULL NAME and they had her entire post from the New Bolton message board on their blog being mocked and degraded with homophobic overtones. Do the Razzies need to go after private citizens? I rest my case, the honor should not be allowed!

Catherine Huebscher

When you use your full name on the internet and write messages to a horse, you have to be ready for somebody to make fun of you. Maybe tell your mother (and yourself I'm assuming) to use a nickname, or at the very least, drop your last name.Zzz345zzZ 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about your tiny website and don't give out advice to me it's not asked for nor respected, this is about whether or not SHOTY award should be on this article. I mentioned the printing of my mom's name as an example of how 'high schoolish' your website is. Your web honors are light years behind The Razzies largely because of the sloppy way you conduct yourselves. Kafziel should note that The Razzies are nearly 27 years old and run as foundation, how could Deadspin SHOTY award even begin to measure up? Catherine Huebscher

Well, as I said above, I suppose we could create an entire separate section for it, but I think that would be giving it more attention than it deserves. Maybe that's most appropriate, though: we can scour the web looking for other notable website making fun of Barbaro and make a section. I'm sure some ESPN writer had something mocking to say. No doubt the Onion did as well.
The point is that the site has been deemed by the community as notable, so articles they write can also be notable. We're not talking about a separate article, just a mention here. It doesn't matter how old the award is. Age has nothing to do with notability. I know you have a personal grudge against the site—a quick google search for your name brings up anti-Deadspin sentiments on several other sites—but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Our guidelines don't provide for hurt feelings. They provide for verifiability and notability, which this seems to meet.
It doesn't seem to be debatable at this point whether the info should be included; it's overwhelmingly supported by editors and guidelines. Now it's just a matter of whether we leave it in the awards section or create a whole separate section to cover sites making fun of it. That's not really the norm in most articles, but it's not unheard-of, either. Kafziel Talk 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have POSTED NO anti-Deadspin rants outside of Wikipedia, so please do not vilify me. DEADSPIN POSTED THOSE ABOUT ME which they pasted from wikipedia, got it? Read and research before you point fingers okay, isn't that what you've been trying to tell me Kafziel? Catherine Huebescher

No, that would be POV pushing, putting too much focus on people who mock Barbaro. It's not verifiable that SHOTY is honorable; we can't put it there. --81.235.40.198 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What's with all this "honorable" stuff? There's no guideline that says an award needs to be "honorable". Kafziel Talk 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An award in an "honors" section needs to be honorable. An award in a "public reaction" section doesn't need to be honorable if it's noted as satire. --81.235.40.198 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So just change "Honors" to "Awards". That's easy. Kafziel Talk 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be misleading. An award in an award section should be honorable; a satiric award would be off-topic, more so if it's marked as satire. --Kjoonlee 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No where does Wikipedia say that an award section must be honorable. Satiric awards appear under the awards sections of other articles (ie. Halle Berry) and the Barbaro article is no exception, despite your disagreements with the award. Please keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Zzz345zzZ 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's still misleading, though. People know that Razzies are satiric; people don't know SHOTY is satiric. Please keep in mind that WP:SOAP applies to you too, despite your disagreements with Barbaro. --Kjoonlee 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You cannot assume that everybody knows the Razzies are satiric, but to clear up any misconceptions, they can follow the links to the Deadspin article and the awards section. It is also important to note that the Razzies and the SHOTY are not identical in their purposes. The Razzies are awarded to the worst of the film industry. The SHOTY is not awarded to the worst of the sports world, but to the biggest and longest running story of Deadspin.com. Winning the SHOTY is not meant to say Barbaro is the worst thing to happen to sports in 2006. Also, I am not on a soapbox against Barbaro, I have no problem with the horse, but the award was given to him, and has been determined to be notable and relevant to the article by the Wikipedia community and admins, so am determined to uphold their decisions against vandalism by the rabid, uncompromising Barbaro fan base. Zzz345zzZ 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to redo the Legacy/Public Reaction sections and add in something more about the anti-Barbaro fan sentiment that includes Deadspin, With Leather, the Onion, and ESPN Page 2. Also I would please remind Catherine of the no personal attacks rule at Wikipedia. Also maybe mention this article/poll/messageboard somewhere from the Lexington Herald-Leader. Zzz345zzZ 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea; such heavy focus on anti-Barbaro sentiments reminds me of POV. WP:NPOV --Kjoonlee 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few links to sources (outside of Deadspin) that could be used to balance the POV (which is currently only reporting half of the story) of the article.

List of Barbaro articles from The Onion
Dickhead Barbaro Yet to Respond to a Single One of His Get-Well Notes
List of Barbaro articles from SportsPickle.com
I'll work on getting more while a decision on how to include them is made. Zzz345zzZ 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Addition of those articles would push the article into POV-land, not NPOV-land. --Kjoonlee 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, right now these types of articles are not reported in the article, despite the fairly widespread publication. The article is currently little more than a fansite and shrine, with several editors (yourself included) trying to keep anything (despite the truth behind it) that you consider negative from being added. Zzz345zzZ 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind truth; it's deception and POV that I can't stand. --Kjoonlee 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on getting rid of the POV and backing it up with links to external sources, thus ridding the article of deception. Maybe you should work on getting sources for statements lacking them if you hate deception so much. Zzz345zzZ 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have POSTED NO anti-Deadspin rants outside of Wikipedia, so please do not vilify me. DEADSPIN POSTED THOSE ABOUT ME when they pasted my quotes from wikipedia, got it? Read and research before you point fingers okay, isn't that what you've been trying to tell me Kafziel? Catherine Huebescher

You seem upset. Maybe you should step away from the computer and gather your thoughts. Zzz345zzZ 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing great, never a headache.Maybe you should step away from your's Catherine Huebescher

[edit] Cleanup of Recovery sections

They tend to read like a play-by-play of what was happening. It was fine the day the news broke, but the horse has been dead for awhile and most of the info is 6+months old. Tenses need changing and there is lots of superfluous info and predictions throughout that portion of the article.Zzz345zzZ 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadspin Public Reaction Needs Citation

if you're going to single out deadspin for being so negative, some sort of citation should be made to explain why it's worse than the cnnsi, yahoo, etc articles talking similarly about the cult of personality around Barbaro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.96.14 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Deadspin needs to be off this page entirely. they came on here as a joke in the first place. catherine

if you are going to delete the deadspin reference then you have to delete the razzies also.

[edit] Barbaro's Heir

I have heard that some of Barbaro's sperm was taken and he now has a three month old foal. My friend and mom told me. I'm pretty sure it's true. 5/4/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.247.136 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

You are probably thinking of his baby broher: Barbaro's newborn brother long on legs and spunk May 2, 2007 . That is marginal.--03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.221.187.96 (talk)

It is highly unlikely that it is true. The Jockey Club does not allow for Thoroughbred horses born via artificial means to race, therefore it is almost never done. A stud must cover a mare in a natural mating process to be registered -- and that's it.(Keycap (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)).

Not even highly unlikely. It isn't true. He was too injured to collect sperm. And even if he had been...the claim in May was that he had a 3 month old foal. Which means the foal would have been born in February. The normal gestation period for a mare is 340 days. Barbaro was injured on 5/20/2006. If they got the semen from him that day (which would have been insanely cruel, considering how semen in horses is collected - the horse mounts an artificial mare) and inseminated a mare, the gestation period would have been around 200 days. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbaro Fund

Should the Barbaro Fund be mention in the Article. I've heard i mention quite a bit.ShadowWriter 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brother

Please stop adding "Barbaro's brother was born in 2007"...it's irrelevant...well, for one reason...because Barbaro has another full brother and a half brother. Smashville 17:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Combine?

Should the Honors, Memorial and Legacy section be combined? It seems like there is no clear rule about what kind of information belongs where.

Races (like at Delaware and Pimlico) named after him, etc... where do you put that? Under Memorial or Honor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.99.90 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)