Talk:Bitless bridle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Article merged: See old talk page here

Contents 1 POV 2 Response by Author 3 Scope 4 Halter "risky" 5 Patent pending 6 War bridle 7 Cross-under image 8 A Few Facts 9 Question to all the Editors 10 Arguments 11 Riding with a halter 12 Revert wars and such 13 Dictionaries appear to be of little help 14 Cross-under 15 Sarcasm 16 Cross Under 17 Photos 18 Side Pull 19 Read the rules 20 Temporary truce proposal 21 Clarification 22 COI stuff 23 "Dr. Cook has patented the term" 24 Truce? 25 Verified, reliable sources of "bitless bridle" 26 Hackamore vs bitless bridle 27 Cleanup attempt 28 Grammatical issue 29 Circular link 30 Photo 31 Styles 32 Edit/riding halter 33 Intro 34 Mechanical hackamore 34.1 End of this issue, please? 35 LG Bridle (aka Gluecksrad) 36 Settle this calmly 36.1 Question 36.2 Round two 36.3 Round three 37 Archive and clean start? 38 Where it all started 39 Riding Halter to merge here 40 Riding halter 41 New Section 42 Hackamore issue 43 General Comment 44 First Paragraph (Origins) 45 Adios! 46 LG Bridle

[edit] POV

Although I don't doubt the usefulness of bitless bridles (and have ridden with them), the reference (or at least its title) is anti-bit rather than pro-bitless. How about some references on the use of bitless bridles?

[edit] Response by Author

I disagree completely. How is the title "anti-bit"? This article is strictly a definition of what a bitless bridle is. No where in the article does it say "Do not use a bit." I have found this reaction is typical of people who, for one reason or another, are defensive of their use of a bit.

The reason most people ride bitless is because they do not like the harm the bit can cause to the horse. Also, most horses are much calmer when ridden in a bitless bridle. There is much anecdotal evidence of this which is not included as I felt it was not sufficiently 'reference-able.' There are, however, many references to the physical and psychological side-effects of using a bit, even when in the mildest of hands... (please see reference for more info). Shall I include them?

Bitless riding is an alternative for those who do not want to risk the possible harmful effects, but the article is simply a definition of what bitless means. I think you are reading too much into what was written.

And finally, this from Wikipedia on disputing neutrality: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." AeronM (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The Author

Please do not make personal attacks, even when veiled: "I have found this reaction is typical of people who, for one reason or another, are defensive of their use of a bit."

Honestly, Metal in the Mouth. The Abusive Effects of Bitted Bridles seems "anti-bit" to me. Please explain how I have misconstrued it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, mechanical hackamores and traditional hackamores can be just as abusive as bits. It all boils down to common sense and using the bit/bridle/hackamore correctly. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I am sorry you do not like the title of the book I referenced. I cannot do much about that. PS I agree that "mechanical hackamores can be just as abusive as bits." AeronM (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Curtis was saying you can't just present ONE side of the argument. You can't only say that bits can cause problems without also saying that bitless bridles, in the wrong hands, can cause problems. The trick to writing on Wikipedia is to find the middle ground and present both sides as evenly as possible. I added some references and more information to the article. PLEASE always always always add references to everything you write. I know that horse-people have problems with that, because a lot of times we just "know" things, mainly from observation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia wants third party sources, and nothing is worse than going BACK to an article someone else wrote and trying to find references for it. Been there, done that, and it's so much easier for your fellow editors if you do the references first time around. And in the full-disclosure department, many years ago, I ran a summer camp riding program for a number of years. We used mechanical hackamores exclusively, so I'm hardly "anti-bitless bridle" but in my current riding, I use snaffles almost exclusively, mainly because I'm doing beginning dressage. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki. I will find refs supporting "bits cause problems" and you go ahead and rustle up some refs that say bitless bridles cause problems. Ready? GO! --AeronM (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing CITED information is not a cool thing to do. Not at all. The information on the roping is accurate as is the show jumping (the reference has a picture of at least one show jumper with a mechanical hackamore.) Note that the about collection said it was more difficult, if not impossible. You can removed the "If not impossible" if you really insist, but the quoted source (which is by a well-respected European writer on equestrain matters) does in fact say that collection is more difficult in bitless bridles. Kindly replace the information. Taking it out is against Wikipedia norms. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because one includes a photo does not make it relevant to the article. Also, I'm sorry you think removing cited material is "uncool." Again, just because it is cited does not make it relevant.

I really DO NOT want this to turn into a "Bits vs. Bitless" discussion. There is plenty of that going on in the chatrooms.

I would like very much for this article to remain short and neutral.

Because many types of bitless bridles are new, I am having trouble finding adequate source material. I will persevere.AeronM (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who from the very beginning made it a "Bits vs. Bitless" article by prominently featuring an anti-bit book as your only reference. You appear to be the one with the cause, and, believe me, your pushing it on Wikipedia won't make you any allies, even among editors who may agree with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT cause??? I don't have a cause at all, except adding information that is cited to Wikipedia. If the article is about bitless bridles, then information about the uses of said bridles is relevant. The current article lists information on bits, is THAT relevant to a bitless bridle?Ealdgyth | Talk 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some articles to support the growing popularity of bitless bridles: http://www.bitlesshorse.co.uk/Files/Developments%20in%20Design.pdf

http://www.equestrianmag.com/news/certified-horsemanship-association-bitless-bridle-2-07.html

http://www.equestrianmag.com/news/stacy-westfall-slide-zone-8-06.html

http://www.nurturalhorse.com/Better_Bridles.html

http://www.naturalmatters.net/natural-horse-equipment.asp

http://www.hauteecole.ru/en/alexander_nevzorov.php

and, if you're still with me, check out these two videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHaEzGz0HeE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXR_SW_soII

Again, these are only FYI, and not 'strong' enough to be used as references for the article.AeronM (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

Let's not define "bitless bridle" as a "cross-under" bridle. That is too narrow. I would define it as any headgear used for riding or driving, that has no bit.

• Bitless bridles that progressively squeeze the muzzle: crossover, crossunder, mechanical hackamore, ...
• Bitless bridles that squeeze the muzzle (or at least keep the mouth closed): sidepull, jumping cavesson, ...
• Bitless bridles that do not squeeze, or that apply pressure to the bridge of the nose or to a point on the jaw: bosal, hackamore, jaquima, halter with reins, ...

--Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Una, I agree 100%. AeronM (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The hackamore predates the "bitless bridle" by, oh, several hundred years; the word jaquima goes back to the Islamic invasions of Spain around the 8th century. "Bitless bridle" is a new term, mostly coined with the invention of the cross under and related designs. In fact, I think the word "bitless bridle" was even copyrighted by someone for a specific design. I also know someone jumped down my throat with both feet for lumping mechanical hackamores in with bitless bridles. True hackamore aficionados are mildly offended by lumping in this classic piece of equipment with various modern gadgets.

Sidepulls and jumping cavessons are sort of in a gray area. I have seen them listed as both hackamore variations and bitless bridles. They work more or less on hackamore principles in that they do not squeeze, and, actually no, they do NOT squeeze the muzzle, if properly adjusted, they cannot be so tight as to keep the mouth closed, they horse must be able to flex and move its jaw--if you adjust either too tight, it will cause pain to the horse, the English jumping cavessons have a cable core, most sidepulls have either nylon rope or rawhide nosebands and all are stiff. Tighten them down and they can't flex their jaw at all, and they make rub points.

However, the bitless aficionado crowd is not into bosals nor really makes much use of the true sidepull. Seems most of the "movement" web pages are promoting various squeezing devises or rope "riding halters." (A true sidepull is a lot different from that riding halter that was pictured, that is not a sidepull... these are sidepulls. (And note they range from a mild flat leather one to one with a steel noseband! =:-O Oh yeah, those are gentle!  :-P )

These days I have seen the word "bitless headgear" incorporate both "bitless bridles" (bitless bridles ARE crossovers, basically) and the classic bosal style hackamores (along with assorted other stuff). IMHO, as far as I am concerned "mechanical hackamores," especially stuff like this and even these are just hybrid junk that crosses the most severe elements of both hackamores and bits.

Sorry to rant a bit about this matter. I am so frustrated by lack of historical understanding of these things. 30 or so years ago, there was no such thing as a "bitless bridle," there were bridles and hackamores, that was it. (Hence why that torture device got named a "mechanical hackamore" instead of something more logical) I feel like an old fuddy-duddy and I'm not even all that old. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 08:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think part of what has happened is that, yes "Bitless Bridle" was coined by one particular manufacturer, but has now become a generic term including all types of bitless aparati, much the same way "Kleenex" (a brand name) is now used to mean tissue in general, "Ketchup" for catsup, etc. AeronM (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halter "risky"

The assertion that a halter is risky for riding/driving presumes that more control requires more pressure, and is belied by the similar very low-pressure mechanism of a bosal. Both bosal and halter put pressure on the bridge of the nose when the reins are pulled. Mechanical hackamores put extreme pressure on the horse's nose and jaw but I have never seen one produce extreme control. --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the kids I have seen injured by riding around bareback with a stable halter and a lead rope on one side at a horse show, someone's truck backfires, the horse bolts, the kid can't stop it... If a horse panics and bolts, you need something to enhance pressure, an ordinary stable halter cannot to it. I know people who have been killed. Maybe some kind of special "riding halter" can add the leverage needed when disaster strikes, but all the control you have in a stable halter is the goodwill of the horse. A riding teacher would be exposing themselves to immediate and certain liability for negligence if they let kids ride horses around in just a halter. Yes, people do it all the time (even I have), that doesn't mean it isn't risky. As for a bosal, if you haven't seen the head of a horse bloodied by abusive use of a bosal, well, I have. It is only a low-pressure mechanism in the right hands, in the wrong hands, it can be very severe, especially the heavy breaking ones. Or the illegal ones with a cable core... don't get me started. The point about halters is that, basically, proper riding headgear has a "panic" capability that a competent rider can use in case all hell breaks loose. And I have seen people dumped and known people severely injured by riding around in halters (add bareback and barefoot to the mix and I am just going to close my eyes and cringe!!) Montanabw^(talk) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw: Had these kids/horses been trained to ride in a riding halter? Would you allow them to drive a car without first teaching them how to do it? There is specific proir training involved in riding in a halter. You don't just get on and go, any more than you put a kid behind the wheel of a car, and say "drive." AeronM (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Any type of effective headgear requires training. Duh. If there is any significant difference between the pressure and release method used with a bosal and the way you ride with a halter, do share. I've taught riding lessons on and off since the 1970s. I start all my beginners in private lessons on a longe line and I don't give beginners the reins until they have enough of a seat that they aren't going to use the reins to hang on. Even after they get the reins, they don't get to canter off the longe until they can do what folks now call a "7-7-7 trot" (sitting, posting, two-point, seven strides each, without loss of balance) with the reins to my satisfaction. I teach good hands from day one. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, that is great and I am glad you teach such a good foundation. (Side note: your "duh" was a bit of unecessary sarcasm)... But a good seat does not equal training the rider and horse to be ridden in a halter. The horse must undergo a training period as well, and yes, riding in a bosal and riding in a riding halter are very different. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro bitless riding in whatever form it takes, but there is some additional knowledge/training required to do it. I have foxhunted, trail ridden, evented and shown in a halter for many many years, given clinics on the subject, etc..., so there is really no limit to what you can do with 'prior proper preparation,' as one trainer would say. AeronM (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patent pending

"My invention is patent pending and I would appreciate fellow editors not removing the correct title." (from edit summary)

Okay, this explains a lot. You're using this article to push your own commercial interests. Now I'm going to have to investigate your external links, and probably have to find out whatever I can about "The Aeron Riding Halter" in order to cleanse the article of your commercialization. AFAICT, none of the rest of us who have edited this article are selling or inventing tack. You've basically proved that everything you write is POV, since you are pushing the stuff you sell.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I'm afraid you are wrong. Before I stumbled into this mess, there WAS no page defining what a bitless bridle was. Should I apologize for being the one to start it? Notice that I am not whining because my page has been hijacked by some with an agenda.... I realize that is what happens here on Widipedia, and there is little one can do to remedy the situation.

Once again, you are the one with the agenda. Your blindness to this (or perhaps intentional prevarication) doesn't change the fact. You are the person who is selling bitless bridles; not me, not Montanabw, not Ealdgyth, not Una Smith. You are the problem here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is, and always was, to provide readers with a simple, clear definition of what a bitless bridle is. I did not want it to devolve in to long discussion about which is better, or who causes the most harm to their horses, etc. etc etc. I am sick of removing people's personal opinions about which is better, etc. This is not the place for that.

You are the one who adds your own opinions, and removes those of others. The edit history shows that clearly, and your claiming that you don't is not supported by the evidence.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one is allowed to put a photo of an item that someone has invented, then we will have to remove all the photos.... bosal, hackamore, and cross-under as well.

It's not that anyone did, it's that you the inventor of a bitless bridle, which he sells, creates an article on bitless bridles that pushes a POV

I did not invent a bitless bridle. Therefore, there is no COI. It might have been argued on the Riding halter page, but not this one. I am also not pushing a POV. --AeronM (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

("bits are bad"; I read your blog, and it's no different from the way you started out here) and casts his product in a favorable light. That's okay for your own web site, but it's not okay at Wikipedia. Perhaps you never read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And in addition to POV, you are also writing original research, another Wikipedia no-no.

I plead guilty to biting the newcomer, but it's hard not to when a newcomer pointedly ignores the rules even when they are pointed out.

I'm still not an opponent of bitless bridles, but I'll wrap a rawhide rope around my horse's lower jaw Native American style before I ever buy one of yours.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Now that's what I call civil!! --AeronM (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So feel free to try to "cleanse the article of [my] commercialization" of which there is none. This has become quite an unpleasant experience. AeronM (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia, not sell our tack. If you find that unpleasant, so be it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there ARE indeed many other manufacturers of products with pages on wiki... for example: Bates, Devoucoux, McClellan, Neatsfoot, Wintec, etc. And that's just in one small category. Have you issued the same threats to them as well? AeronM (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Una Smith (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Curtis, so be it. All references to bitless bridles invented by anyone will be removed. Have it your way. I see that you have removed the photo I put up when I wrote the page. So then, all photos of bitless bridles shall be removed? Or is it just me you are punishing? I think it's clear this has become personal.

Thanks for letting this become a negative, ugly exchange, instead of an enlightened, educational one. I find your personal attacks unprofessoinal, nor are they helpful or appreciated. I'm quite certain there's some sort of Wikipedia protocol regarding insulting and attacking other editors, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to go track it down. This is exactly why Wikipedia remains so full of errors and incorrect information. Too many cooks in the kitchen. It is too bad, because there were those of us who were trying to make this a fair, balanced article. I asked early on that it not devolve into nastiness and mud-slinging, but I guess some people just can't help themselves. If I am "the problem," than I certainly won't continue to bother you. I leave you and wish you luck. AeronM (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say too few cooks in the kitchen. Anyway, naming brands and asserting "patent pending" are commercial marketing activities that have no place here. --Una Smith (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I did not state "patent pending" on the article page. It is patent pending, that is simple fact. Some of the others are already patented, some are also patent pending. What difference does this make to the definition of "bitless bridle"??AeronM (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War bridle

Does the string go over or under the horse's tongue? --Una Smith (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A "war bridle" is a severe leverage device with a pulley or hondo that usually runs over the poll and under the upper lip. You are thinking of an "Indian" bridle? The rope/thong/cord goes over the tongue just like a bit. Under the tongue would be cruel. Montanabw^(talk) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to do some research here re usage of "war bridle". AFAIK, all war bridles involve slip knots, but there are multiple arrangements of the war bridle on the horse's head. The "over the poll and under the lip" variant is extremely harsh. Here are some relevant photos with "war bridle" in the caption:

• lower jaw here and [here (Nez Perce warrior) and here and here (image) and here and here and here
• poll and mouth here and here and here
• poll and muzzle (= "makeshift halter") here and here (video)

--Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruel, like, say, a bit under the tongue? AeronM (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruel? Maybe, maybe not. Some horses habitually put their tongue over the bit. --Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not "cruel" with a solid bit, perhaps, when the tongue goes over the bit, a) the bit is improperly adjusted or doesn't fit properly in the first place, or b) the rider is misusing it, and c) the horse does it to take the pressure off the tongue, but a rope war bridle is going to cut worse into the bars without the tongue to support it, and the rope will also irritate the underside of the tongue....a horse with its tongue over the bit almost always is going around with its mouth gaping open, in some discomfort, at the very least. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, again you are incorrect on facts regarding tongue over the bit. Please see this article: http://www.horsecity.com/stories/122903/efe_mouthpt2_HB.shtml AeronM (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-under image

That's a bad image. It looks like both reins are clipped to one ring, and the horse appears to be tied by its bridle, tied low, and tied with low strength clips. All bad horsemanship. Doesn't anyone have a better image of this style of bridle? --Una Smith (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Una. I had a better image of one of Dr. Cook's bridles that I had permission to put up, but I am bowing out, so someone else will have to take up the cause.AeronM (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the photo isn't great, but I don't think the horse is tied. No evidence of reins wrapped around anything. If anyone can find a FREE image that is legal in wikipedia, we can sure look at it. Montanabw^(talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The reins are under tension. Either the horse is tied low, or someone out of frame is holding it low. Either way, it is strange. --Una Smith (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Could we use a different photo? AeronM (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Find one, I'm groovy with something better, but free images are hard to find, sometimes Flickr has cc-licensed images with no commercial restrictions. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cook has given me permission to use one of his photos. Does anyone object? I think it is the best photo to illustrate a cross-under. AeronM (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Few Facts

And finally, I would like to point out a few facts which keep getting obscured for some reason. Starting with the first sentence, which now implies that a bitless bridle is used only on a horse. This is incorrect. Bitless bridles are also used on donkeys, mules, zebras, camels and even cows (I have seen this in person!). I therefore would argue that something along these lines would be more succinct: "A bitless bridle is a type of headgear used to control an animal when ridden that does not include a bit."

Point #2: There are many types of bitless bridle. A bosal is a type of bitless bridle. A hackamore is a type of bitless bridle. A side-pull is a type of bitless bridle. A riding halter is a type of bitless bridle. Simple! There should be a photo of each, a brief description of each, and that's it. We should not include why or how one might be better than another. It mainly boils down to personal preference, so let's leave the personal opinions out.

Point #3: For those who keep adding that riding in a bitless bridle is more "risky" than riding in a bitted bridle... this is a common misconception about bitless riding. One could argue that all types of riding are risky, but to say that bitless riding is more risky shows an unfamiliarity with this style of riding. Watch a bitless or bridle-less demonstration by a pro and you will see what I mean. Also, anyone is welcome to come watch me foxhunt in a riding halter. You will be amazed to see how many bitted horses are careening about out of control, while my mare is in perfect control at all times. It is a matter of training, not bitting, that controls the horse.

Which brings me to my last point, Curtis, which is this: if the experts in the subject are not allowed to write the article, then who should? If you discount everyone who has invented or promoted a bitless bridle, then we cannot hear from any of the experts, including Dr. Cook, the Nurtural folks, the LG folks, etc. So, with all of the experts eliminated, who is left to write the article? And yes, of course I write from my own point of view. If this is disagreeable to you, I would ask you this: from who's point of view should I write? AeronM (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. --Una Smith (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that my external link was deleted, but not that of another bitless bridle manufacturer. Why the discrepancy here?AeronM (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And see my comment above in a different section. The bosal hackamore may be headgear without a bit, it is NOT a "bitless bridle." Montanabw^(talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Montanabw, you are incorrect. Whoever re-wrote the first paragraph is also incorrect. A bitless bridle is any bridle without a bit. A bosal and all types of hackamores are therefore bitless bridles by definition. Also, whoever re-wrote the section on riding halters is very much mistaken as well. If you think you do not have control of a horse in a bitless bridle, you have completely missed the entire natural horsemanship style of riding, as well as proven you know very very little about bitless riding in general. I suggest you go look it up. But not on Wikipedia. As evidenced herein, the entries can be written by those who do not know what they are talking about. Sorry to be grouchy, but afraid CC and all the nice public humiliation has soured me on this topic. AeronM (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need to change the title of this article to Bridle without a bit? That is how I use the term. I bet the general term bitless bridle predates the brand name "bitless bridle". --Una Smith (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question to all the Editors

Would it not be beneficial to have a photograph of each type of bitless bridle on the page? AeronM (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, unless anyone objects, I will try to track down/upload one photo of each type. The example of the hackamore page is a good one, showing a photo of each type. AeronM (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, ok, I have added two photos.... we still need a hackamore pic (can we use the same one from the hackamore page?) and maybe an Indian/War one. AeronM (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

Look, folks, when you read something that throws up a "what?? no way!" flag with you, rather than deleting, reverting, or wholesale rewriting, with a snarky edit comment to boot, please (1) calm down, (2) think about what the text might be intended to say, (3) do some research, and (4) discuss it here on the talk page. There is far too much "is too!" "is not!" edit warring on these horse pages, and that is a waste of everyone's time. It has been my experience that wherever there is argument, there is too little knowledge and, more often than not, some research will produce highly interesting content. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, I couldn't agree more. When I originally created this page, my mission was simply to define the term bitless bridle and show a few examples, and not to get into a debate about it's pros and cons, who likes it and who doesn't, etc., etc. I think if we can keep it simple and keep out the negative stuff and personal opinions, it would benefit everyone reading it. PS I apologize for any snarkiness on this end... I was attacked and got defensive. I will endeavor to be more patient. AeronM (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, there are no special points for creating a page. Sorry. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Special points? Points for what??? Is that meant to be sarcasm? AeronM (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riding with a halter

here (top set of photos) is someone riding with a rope halter and reins. They call it a hackamore (jaquima) but it is not because there is no fiador and reins adjusted to allow the rider the option of applying pressure to the jaw. here are several photos of a guy riding indoors with an ordinary halter plus reins. I routinely ride very technical "Class 1" mountain trails using a similar halter plus reins (or a lead rope, hence one rein). I like my horse to think and figure out where to put her feet without my telling her. My telling her would be micro-managing, which may be rewarded in AQHA horse show "trail" classes", but is a fault in a real-world trail horse. I like and often need to be doing something else while riding, such as searching for a lost person or taking notes or talking. here is a newsletter style website discussion of riding in a rope halter. here is an Australian "riding halter" on eBay. here is a discussion of riding in a halter with one rein. here is a site selling "hackamores/bitless riding halters." here is an endurance rider's blog about using a "Boz riding halter" (product name). Bored yet? There are loads of products called "riding halters", and many discussions of riding in an ordinary halter with reins attached. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have missed your point here. Was there one? AeronM (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars and such

Rather than make scattered replies, I am consolidating. May I recommend "bitless headgear?" I have seen that in some neutral articles in places like Equisearch and such. I wrote the material on the bosal hackamore, which predates the "bitless bridle" by centuries and is a respected classic tool that is centuries old. I can provide sources, but may take a trip to hardcopy offsite, so patience is requested.) "You may use the "fact" tag on things with which you disagree, but don't blank things. I'll source material that you tag, but it may take a few days.

If the term "bitless bridle" is becoming generic, then, like "Kleenex," it still is actually incorrect (note "Velcro" is called "hook and loop fastener", and the manufacturer won that one here in the US). Also remember the wikipedia pillar Assume good faith. I am glad people are enthusiastic about new ideas, but I am deeply concerned about the lack of understanding - and historical background - that comes with the enthusiasm. I can look terms up and see if it can be sourced to an actual date of first use. (Also have a friend with a copy of the OED, that may settle it).

On the note of we are all in this together, you needn't lecture me on natural horsemanship, though ALL of us should be relying on neutral third party sources per WP:NOR. That said, as my wiki handle suggests, I live in the heart of NH country, I am a fourth generation horse person, and also knew of some of these people live and for real "back when" they were just a bunch of broke cowboys with neither fame nor fortune, trying to get a start. I have experimented with various bitless designs because bitted bridles can be a PITA on some trail rides, and especially riding, even in a ring, when its below zero outside. Over the course of about 40-some years of riding, I know assorted show and training skills, including dressage. And, yes, in fact I DO understand that different techniques are used at different times. I am trying very hard not to be offended by the tone of some of the remarks here.

I am a bit cynical about the NH movement because I have watched it come out of this country over the last 20 years and turn into show business. The old guys like Hunt and the Dorrance brothers admitted they were either borrowing classical dressage principles or concepts from the vaquero tradition (and basically, both had roots in 15th-16th century Spain, so the two traditions are closer than people think), but many of the new ones claim it's their new thing and really have quite a scam going. But read Miller and Lamb's Revolution in Horsemanship, they review the history.

And please, in most books on training, a "war bridle" goes through the mouth or under the lip, occasionally around the nose, it does not refer to the (also misnamed) "Indian bridle" that loops around the chin. Actually, "war bridle" and "Indian bridle are both a misnomer for the jaw loop, some American Indian cultures used simple headgear for hunting and travel, not just war, likewise, many tribes used standard headstall-style, simple bridles when they could get them, particularly for war-they didn't fall off as easily. It is a fine point, but living in a state with 7 reservations, well, I can verify that lot of Indian people are a bit touchy about the "wild red Indian" stereotype. (They are also mildly annoyed by the term "Native American" though it beats some of the racial slurs out there)

The "war bridle" term when used for pressure device has a different meaning and can be considered a term of art. Just because someone took a photo of a man on a horse and called the gear a war bridle doesn't mean the photo caption is correct (for example, look at all the wiki commons photos of gray horses labeled "white" horses!) Just use fact tags and give me a week or two, many fish to fry...

As for the riding with a halter thing, sure, many people, including myself, occasionally ride in just a halter, sometimes even with one rein (I also live in the heart of neck-reining country, by the way). Nonetheless It is still NOT SAFE.

"Nonetheless It is still NOT SAFE." Again, this is not correct and shows a personal bias/unfamiliarity with bitless riding. Riding in a rope halter or riding halter, if done correctly, is perfectly safe, and may in fact eliminate some dangerous behaviors by horses who bolt/rear etc. due to pain from a bit. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, bits don't cause pain, riders with bad hands cause pain. Your own anti-bit bias is now showing. I've seen people use a halter in a way that skins a horse's jaw raw, I've seen a bosal bloody the face of a horse, I've seen horses bolt and rear (and fall) due to pain from a mechanical hackamore.

Shall we compare the abuses you have "witnessed" with bitless riding with the abuses I have witnessed with bitted???? Trust me, montana, that is one arguement you do not want to get into!!! AeronM (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Trust me, board your horse at a barn with a bunch of roping/barrel racing folks and you see stuff that sets your hair on end!) Oh please, don't give me the "bits are cruel" argument. And no matter which side you are on, a horse is NEVER "perfectly safe," that's horse safety rule #1. They are prey animals with a well-developed flight or fight instinct and they outweigh us by 800 or more pounds. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, bits don't cause pain, riders with bad hands cause pain." Again, montanabw, you are woefully short of facts. Please do some research on the subjust before making proclamations such as this, an idea long disproven. Have you even read any of the scientific studies? I have. After you do, come back and we'll chat. AeronM (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Any of the "bitless" designs are at least somewhat better than a web stable halter. If someone wants to discuss specific control techniques they use and how they differ, if at all, from the pressure and release techniques used with a bosal, which have been around for centuries, as opposed to a bit (and as opposed to techniques used with bits in western riding, particularly the vaquero tradition of the bosal-to-spade bit method which is also a pressure and release method), it's all good. As far as I can tell, however, riding with a halter far too often means "no refinement and minimal control." And usually it's an excuse for not learning to ride with good hands.

Again, unfamiliarity with bitless riding/riding in a halter. See above AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See answer way above in earlier section. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are exceptions, but if you want to get on a green horse that is wearing only a halter and take them out in the open, or, for that matter, ride even an experienced horse with a halter in rattlesnake or grizzly bear country (snakes and bears are enough of a risk with a real bridle), well, I don't. I call it suicide.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. It does not belong on wikipedia, however. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Viewpoints in conflict can be discussed on wikipedia if each side is presented in a fair and balanced manner, as in (to oversimplify) "some people think riding with a halter is suicidally dangerous; others claim that it is perfectly safe in every way." IN education, this is called "teaching the controversy."

OK, thats more than enough for now. I am going to re-edit the article and use the fact tag on myself where I anticipate a dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw.... ok! ok! We get it, the bosal has been around a long time! No need to beat the proverbial dead horse! It is still considered a bitless bridle under the general definition, regardless of how long it has been used, how, and by whom. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, actually, see below. Full of inaccuracies and contradictory as dictionaries can be with terms of art, they all agree that there is such a thing as a hackamoe and they have no clue what a "bitless bridle" is. Hackamores do not have bits, bridles do. "Bitless bridle" is in some ways an oxymoron, but I can live with that much. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionaries appear to be of little help

OK, I have a call out to my friend with the OED to look up some terms, and I will dig out hardcopy texts tomorrow, but in the meantime, other than that Hackamore has been around as a distinct word since the mid-1800s (and the concept is older than that), plus the bitless bridle IS a modern term, mostly for one person's invention, online sources give me this total disaster:

Dictionary.com and reference.com: No entry for bitless bridle, most links go to Dr. Cook's model

Hackamore: multiple definitions, the oldest dating to 1840 or 1850 (hence, Mexican war period when many Spanish words for riding equipment entered the English language), origin Sp. jaquima, meaning "headstall." Depending on the sources, a hackamore is a " a simple looped bridle, by means of which controlling pressure is exerted on the nose of a horse, used chiefly in breaking colts[sic]." (COLTS?!? Arrgh! Those are boy horses! You can start fillies in one too! Even the dictionary can't get horse terms correct! ARRGH! ARRGH! ARRGH!!) (Sorry, had a moment there) (LOL). And I loved the second example: "A rope or rawhide halter with a wide band that can be lowered over a horse's eyes, used in breaking horses to a bridle." Um, the blindfold method is sort of an offshoot of the Texas tradition, not many folks use that method any more, and the "wide band" is the browband, not necessarily used as a blindfold because it can't be easily removed...? No one here will argue that a hackamore has to have a blindfold! (Who writes these things? Not horse people). Or, "rope or canvas headgear for a horse, with a rope for leading" gee, can't ride in it?

Online dictionary at Datasegment.com Hackamore: "A halter consisting of a long leather or rope strap and headstall, -- used for leading or tieing a pack animal. [Western U. S.] [1913 Webster] or " rope or canvas headgear for a horse, with a rope for leading [syn: halter, hackamore] http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/hackamore (Um, no, I don't really think so. We ALL agree here that you ride in them)

No entries found for "bitless bridle"

Other dictionary defintions: Allwords.com Bitless bridle No entries Hackamore : "A kind of bridle with no bit" (hmm, yet other definitions call it a "halter." Arrgh!)

Interestingly, in light of the slipknot/war bridle discussion, I found this:

Merriam-webster "noun Etymology: by folk etymology from Spanish jáquima bridle Date: 1850: a bridle with a loop capable of being tightened about the nose in place of a bit or with a slip noose passed over the lower jaw."

No entries for bitless bridle (Bosal defined, but only if you pay for a subscription)

Saw another definition that said a hackamore had one rein. (actually, more like three, sigh...)

If nothing else, being careful to say "bosal hackamore" is a good idea.

Conclusion: Other than providing links to the patented product called a "bitless bridle," the term is not defined in most dictionaries, but hackmore is. So, there is n argument that a bitless bridle might be a hackamore, but a hackamore is not really a "bitless bridle" unless you want to mess with Doc Cook's patent. (sigh)

That was fun. Not... Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing! AeronM (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

General dictionaries are not much use for technical jargon. Most medical terms are not in OED or any similar dictionary. But there are many, many medical dictionaries, most out of print. Some are on Google Books now, and very useful to us over in WP:MED. Aren't there any good horse-specific dictionaries? --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please read two articles from my site if you have time. I think they will be helpful: http://www.naturalhorsemanship.biz/ "What Does 'Bitless' Really Mean?" and "Why Bitles Is Better." You don't have to agree with them, but I think it would be helpful to have more facts before you make a judgement. AeronM (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-under

"A bitless bridle ... most directly references a style of headgear also known as the cross-under". Well, no, not unless you are in the business of selling The Bitless Bridle(TM). --Una Smith (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I altered the wording there. AeronM (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, it appears that in Montanabw's corner of the world the only thing called a bitless bridle is Robert Cook's product, and the only thing called a war bridle is the variant illustrated in Dr. Beery's colt training book. Please stop labeling other editors' knowledge as incorrect or wrong; in most cases it is simply limited. --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, I agree. AeronM (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm

The reason I am getting sarcastic is because people who are zealous advocates of anything are so sadly similar. You assume everyone else is stupid and that you and your cult [!!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)alone has seen the light and if we just check out your book/magazine/DVD/website we too will eagerly join the cult. Sorry, but your assumption that I don't understand this material is offensive; I understand it and the point is simple: "Bitless bridles" are a new fad. [wrong] AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Hackamores are headgear without a bit that date to antiquity. [beating dead horse again]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Bits, hackamores, "bitless bridles" and any other piece of gear can be abusive if the person uses it in an abusive manner. [i think that's stating the obvious]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (Which is why my only real POV, if any, is the cause of a solid seat and good hands. You can ride in anything if you know how to ride properly). The term "bitless bridle" is in fact patented and there is an argument to be made that this entire article should be deleted as commercial promotion. I won't make that argument,[I think you just did!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) but I am tired of this whole discussion. And please stop blanking my contributions. [Then discuss your contributions before adding them, as is wiki policy]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Tag them and request sources if you wish [already did]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (and when you tag, you need to give the editor more than a day to fix it if requested, as I have) Please learn the wikipedia rules, starting with Wikipedia is not a soapbox[Ditto!!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC). Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think you have just proved my point! AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(from montanabw)

(Do not blank good faith edits and especially sourced edits, that could be construed as edit warring and vandalism.

I couldn't agree more. Please dicsuss your "edits" prior to adding them. AeronM (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS monatanbw, It is clear you are very interested and knowledgeable about the bosal hackamore. However, the definition paragraph (first introductory paragraph) of the page entitled Bitless Bridles is not the right place for your information. I am not arguing with the validity of your contribution, just the placement/relevance. Let's keep it in the bosal section of the article, and you are free to go to town on the bosal page! AeronM (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Under

I am wondering if this section: "Another example connects each rein to a strap that passes through a ring on one side of a noseband, under the jaw, and attaches to the opposite ring" is really considered a cross-under? Or is it something different? AeronM (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Una wrote that part, not sure. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you all check the article history, and examine diffs, before you start rewriting??? Yes, I wrote the bit about the German cross-under bridle. I am trying to group all these bitless bridles into categories, regardless of name. As our debates here illustrate, the names are diverse and unstable. --Una Smith (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

The Cross-Under is a relatively new design of bitless bridle, invented in the 20th century.^[1]

The ref is to one brand of cross-under bridle, which has a patent claim date. That is not proof of no earlier invention. There is at least one other brand of cross-under bridle on the market. I am removing this sentence from the description; I suggest reserving such details for a future History section. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Montanabw, please do not remove photos without discussing it first. I had previously asked if there were any objections to putting in a photo of each type of bitless gear. No one objected. For you to delete one picture (and I think I know why... can you say 'personal vendetta??') without even discussing it is against wiki policy. If you are going to delete one picture and not the others, you need to explain why. You are not, however judge and jury, but part of a discussion. Please try to remember that. AeronM (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Monty, While I appreciate that you know your way around Wikipedia, I would ask that a person who has demonstrated such an obvious bias against bitless riding and natural horsemanship (on your own talk page) not add content without first discussing it with the group. PS Laughing at me/talking about me behind my back (with ealdgyth on your talk page) is both unprofessional and just plain immature. You two sound like a couple of highschoolers giggling in the girl's bathroom. : ) It begins to undermine your credibility. AeronM (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove photos, I moved one a bit. If a photo was deleted, it was by the wikipedia admins. Don't blame me for that one.

And dear, no personal vendetta is involved. You are simply not that important. Montanabw^(talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, according to the history here, you DID delete the photo. --AeronM (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I think you just proved my point!  : ) AeronM (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the jumping cavesson is gone. Hmm. I don't recall removing it deliberately, I thought I fixed a formatting glitch. Amusing if that's the one you are upset about because I was the one who originally put it in there, and it happens to be MY jumping cavesson and I uploaded the photo, actually. LOL! (And I don't use it much because it is heavy and the cable makes it a bit harsh on the nose.) Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, folks, instead of guessing who did what, read the article history. --Una Smith (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Article history? Skip a day on this article and you have to page back 10 zillion edits! LOL! Note "truce" below. If we stop blanking each other, the article may be bloated for a while, but we may also get to consensus that way. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, several images at hackamore, as you may have noticed, and here are some free images I know of on assorted bitless headgear, may be more out there, these are all in commons: Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Western sidepull, flexible rawhide noseband (Catalog image of a more severe model here)

Jumping caveson. Marketed via Google search most often as Jumping Hackamore

Bosal with macate but no fiador

Ordinary caveson noseband

[edit] Side Pull

Should we add anything specific (or a photo) about a side-pull? This is the only good def I can find so far[1] but I'll keep looking. AeronM (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a photo of a western-style sidepull in the hackamore article, you can certainly add it here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Read the rules

Please read WP:CITE and re-read WP:NPOV. The proper thing to do is to put in the {{fact}} tag on disputed items and only depete them after the editor in question has had a reasonable amount of time to find a source. (Some of us have jobs and can't just run over to borrow the book right away). Also read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I do not think it is appropriate to attack people for a dedication to the truth. I am restoring deleted material, again, but with "fact" tags where I think you will have issues and request five days in which to locate hardcopy source material. (By the way, you blanked other people's edits, not just mine. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary truce proposal

I think the only way to tame down this spat is to NOT BLANK ANYONE'S edits for awhile, even if they may be a little redundant. (For example, Una had one explanation of the cross-under, Aeron has another, I have a third, I think I kept one paragraph of Aeron's and one paragraph of Una's in my last edit, maybe Una wants to put in all of hers, OK, even if we say the same thing two different ways.) Rather, let's make use of wikipedia tools and tags (such as the "fact" tag that I am so fond of). What can be cited and verified should be cited and verified. We can also edit or remove our OWN language (believe it or not, yes, I do occasionally realize that I am incorrect and modify my edits), but perhaps we could agree simply to not change that of other people? Una is correct that there are a lot of words for different things (halter and headcollar, anyone??) and this too should be explained. (As in, "this item is called X in the USA, but it is known as Y in Australia and is called Z in the United Kingdom"). Might I suggest that we correct each other's typos and add "fact" tags to things where we think a source is needed? Beyond that, I suggest that if we want to rephrase an edit, that we put the proposal HERE (as in, "may I rephrase the phrase XYZ' to read, 'ABC?'") I also think that avoiding personal attacks is wise. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

YEY! I agree!!!! Does that include this: "You are simply not that important. Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)" ???AeronM (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Don't blank my stuff, I don't blank yours. In a few weeks, we will see what shakes out. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, I was too snarky, I've now cooled down a bit. I really don't know you from a hole in the wall, and truly, I have over 800 article on my watchlist, I really, truly do not have time for personal vendettas. ( I really want to create an article on the Babolna Stud, it's been on my "to do" list for almost a year...) Between toning down POV 10 zillion breed articles (OK, about 350), half of which contain claims that the Walkaloosavanner has ESP and can jump tall buildings in a single bound, the fringe animal rights folks claiming that any kind of horseback riding is cruel, the kids who get on the computer, blank whole articles and replace them with "ILIKEBOOOOOBS" ...gawd, my patience is down to zero. Welcome to my world. Let's just edit the article per the truce. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Aeron, Hiltrud Strasser is a highly controversial source and best not to be cited as the ONLY authority.

I don't believe I did cite her. AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Dr. Cook also has a considerable profit motive involved in commercial promotion of his product, (and I also noticed this- $32.99 on eBay, eh?). You really must read and understand Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is OK for you to write about Strasser and Cook's ideas, though WP:NPOV applies there, regardless, but for you to write about your own product is a concern.

please see WP:COI specifically "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." and also: "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR specifically: " This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia..." Which brings us back, again, to the point that, if any input from me, or Dr. Cook, or any of the other people who are at the forefront of the bitless industry are not allowed to contribute here, who is going to? By trying to eliminate those who have expertise in this area, what are you left with? You have already expressed an strong bias against bitless riding, so I think to exclude the people who do know and use this way of riding would be unfair and unbalanced... and it is against wiki policy to do so.AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, my concern here on terminology here is not "narrow," (though obviously I do not always know every last terminology difference between UK and USA useage, and sometimes the same term means two different things, as in your use of 'war bridle,' which would be considered a bit of a racist term here by some today, which is why I got a little touchy on that one--and actually, it wasn't just Beery who came up with the design or uses the term, I've also seen it called a "come-along" - talk about euphemism...) It is a question of separating out what is correct (including genuine UK/US language variations) from what has been an incorrect colloquialism.

A classic, non-horse example is schitzophrenia, which is colloquially used in a sense that actually references multiple personality disorder, and even if 99% of the English-speaking world says "schitzophrenia" when they mean "multiple personality," that still doesn't mean it is correct. Likewise, the etymology materials I have looked at so far support the concept that "hackamore" is the correct term for general riding headgear that uses a noseband for control instead of a bit, while "bitless bridle" is a patented term for a certain type of cross-under design that is patented by Dr. Cook and appears in no regular dictionary and because mainstream dictionaries are of only minimal help (especially when the call hackamores "halters for leading a packhorse") I think I can trace cross-unders via different editions of Price's "Whole Horse Catalog" to about 20-25 years ago, but it will take some digging. (Truth is, therefore, a "riding halter" with reins is, most likely, actually a hackamore.) I will voluntarily let go of saying that a bosal is the only "real" hackamore, as I do accept the "noseband for control" definition, though the bosal jaquima is still a classic tool that has been around for centuries (jaquima most closely seems to translate "headstall"). The very word "bridle" implies a bit, I will have to source via hardcopy, but a "bridle" encompasses a headstall with a bit for control, while the thing that goes over the head behind the ears, holding either a noseband or bit, is correctly termed "headstall," and consists of a crownpiece and cheeks, usually including a throatlatch and sometimes other parts, such as a browband. Anyway, I doubt anyone cares all that much about etymology and the history and meaning of words, it's sort of interesting to look into, though. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're just getting into semantics here. AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI stuff

The best approach to any conflict of interest issue is to cite neutral, third party material. For example, if Equus Magazine or TheHorse.com does an article on Strasser or Cook, that would be an acceptable source and also proves WP:NOTABILITY to boot. People's own web sites are always a danger of self-promotion. For example, if some mainstream magazine has reviewed your riding halter invention, that is a legitimate source and I suggest you cite to that. Your own web page is not. Seriously, read the bit on fringe theories that I linked above. That explains it.

For example, the "bitless bridle" concept is sufficiently mainstream that I am not proposing it for deletion, even though Dr. Cook has patented the term. When I first spotted it, I saw it needed cleanup and had POV problems, but no "prod" tag was placed on it. In fact, if it were proposed for deletion, I would vehemently argue against it.

One example of where someone with expertise and, probably some direct research, nonetheless contributed in an acceptable way were the edits that User:Gohs made to domestication of the horse. If s/he was the author of any of the cited references, no one has any way of knowing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dr. Cook has patented the term"

Ah, now I understand. Montanabw, no one has patented the term "bitless bridle", and you need not and probably should not reserve the term for Dr. Cook's product. Dr. Cook claims a patent for a bridle design, and markets a bridle apparently of that design under a claimed but unregistered trademark "Bitless Bridle". Please read Patent and Trademark. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, several months ago some other bitless bridle fan jumped all over my butt for calling just any old cross-under a "Bitless bridle," crying bloody murder about the patented design, and maybe there is no patent in Australia (I think that's where you are, correct?), but there appears to be one in the USA. Truly, I think we need to figure out what things are universal, what things are regional and dialect language issues and what is just plain incorrect use. I just had someone did up a bunch of stuff in the OED. Hackamore dates to 1850, and is identified as derived from jaquima. "Bitless Bridle" is not in the OED. And "bridle" is defined in part as, inherently, something with a headstall and a bit. Close enough for me. If you can't trust the OED, who CAN you trust??? Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: Bitless Bridle(TM) is a claimed but not registered trade mark. The existence of this trade mark, and the associated patent application, have no bearing on anyone's use of the generic term "bitless bridle", which has a written history since at least 1867. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truce?

Lordy! What happened to the truce??? My pic (and none of the others) is gone again!! Please explain. Now we have two photos of Dr. Cook's bridle, and nothing else. AeronM (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, don't be so helpless. Use the history tab at the top of the article, and use the diff selector (those circles are buttons) to work your way through the edit history to find out exactly who did what. --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned with who did but why. I will look.... AeronM (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another quote which is just making me feel warm and fuzzy all over: "I just had it out with AeronM and reverted his recent edits. I'd much rather train a mule or a basset hound." --Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, (laughing!) Hey Curtis! I'm a girl!! AeronM (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning why, check those edit diffs and cut folks some slack. Sometimes the Wikipedia edit interface does bizarre stuff and that often results in inadvertent deletion of chunks of text. It looks like vandalism, but is accidental. --Una Smith (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that sometimes it is inadvertent... but after 6 reverts involving only one photo... one starts to get a little suspiscious! AeronM (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not even sure what photo we are talking about here, the halter? Heck, I think I was the one who ADDED the thing to the halter article (Maybe Una did, I can't remember). I think I took the photo of the jumping cavesson in and out a couple of times, when I edit, I have trouble reading the edit window (having to get reading glasses for the first time sucks, the prescription isn't right) and I'm on slow dialup that occasionally hangs up on me in the middle of an edit, so I save frequently even if I have to make changes later, so only pay attention to whatever the final edit I make looks like, OK? I can f-up a single wikilink that many times! Frankly, just let this go. I cannot recall being so stupid as to violate the WP:3RR rule, I move things around a lot. I don't even remember what all I did yesterday, this whole thing has really gone on long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verified, reliable sources of "bitless bridle"

• Essential Horse: The Ultimate Guide to Caring for And Riding Your Horse, by Susan McBane, 2006, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 192 pages.
  • p. 87: "Bitless bridles. The earliest bridles were just ropes passed around the horse's head and there were no bits. Later on, riders threaded strips of rawhide or jute rope through the horse's mouth, for extra control. Bitless bridles are still popular today, particularly among showjumpers and some endurance riders.
  • p. 95: "Bitless bridles have always been used ... There are several different kinds ... Some bitless bridles are very strong in their action while others are extremely mild. The Western hackamore bridle ... Another very mild bitless bridle is the side-pull ... A similar bridle is the Scawbrig ... One of the strongest bitless bridles ... is the Blair, often incorrectly called a hackamore"
  • My comment: This is a very clearly UK-centric book. It does not mention the mechanical hackamore but from its description the Blair is one of that class. So is the Gluecksrad, for that matter.
• The Revolution in Horsemanship: And What It Means to Mankind, by Robert M. Miller and Rick Lamb, Globe Pequot 2005, 368 pages
  • p. 227-229: "The mechanical hackamore is not really a hackamore at all, but simply another form of bitless bridle. ... If you removed the shanks from a mechanical hackamore and replaced them with rings, you would have the essence of the sidepull. It is also very similar to a simple halter with rings on the sides for attachment of reins. ... Another form of bitless bridle is the Bitless Bridle ... Finally comes the rope halter and reins"
  • My comment: p.229 includes a 1955 photo of Dr. Miller riding a horse in a Johnson rope halter (rope halter with some metal hardware) with reins.
• The Training and Breaking of Horses, by Merritt Wesley Harper, 1918, 387 pages
  • p.94: "If the horse is a lugger ... some even go so far as to recommend the bitless bridle."
  • p.233: "If the horse fights the bit, do not use a severe one, as is the usual practice, but try a bitless bridle for a time."
• The Encyclopedia Americana, by Grolier Incorporated, 1988.
  • p 429: "The hackamore, a bitless bridle, controls the horse by ..."
• In to the Yukon, by William Seymour Edwards , 1905, 335 pages
  • p.288:

"... passed a rope halter over its head, which he made cleverly into a bitless bridle ..."

• Before Barbed Wire, by Mark Herbert Brown and William Reid Felton, 1956, 256 pages
  • p.219: "A hackamore is the bitless bridle, so to speak, which is put on a wild horse as his first introduction to the bridle"
• The Horseman's Encyclopedia, by Margaret Cabell Self, A.S. Barnes and Company, 1946, 519 pages
  • p.85: "The hackamore, which is a bitless bridle, controls the horse by ..."
• Once a Week, by Eneas Sweetland Dallas, 1867
  • p.702: "standing ... by the head of a little white horse of Mexican type, which had been hastily arrayed in bitless bridle of twisted thong ..."

et cetera. --Una Smith (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Una. These are excellent. AeronM (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can top this. You are confusing descriptions with definitions. While hackamore can be called a bitless bridle, the word hackamore itself did come first, and my source is the Oxford English Dictionary. Thus, a hackamore is the earlier and more correct term. It is useful to explain it as a "bitless bridle," but understand the difference between a description and a title. Bridles have bits. Hackamores have nosebands. A "bitless bridle" is, therefore, a usefule descriptor for someone who has never heard of a hackamore, but in truth, an oxymoron. (Just like my example of schitzophenia and multiple personality disorder). I have copied the OED definitions in full as they were provided to me. See below. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

hackamore: U.S.

Etymology: corruption of Sp. jaquima, formerly xaquima, halter, headstall of a horse (Minsheu).

Definition: A halter of horsehair or raw hide having a nose-piece fitted to serve as the head piece of a bridle. Also, a headstall.

Quotations: 1850 W. R. RYAN Upper & Lower California I. 152: "He overtook me, mounted on a well saddled horse, and leading another by the hackamore." 1889 Farmer, John S. Americanisms, old and new: a dictionary, "Hackamore, a plaited bridle in use on the plains, made of horse-hair, and used for breaking-in purposes". 1926 D. BRANCH Cowboy & his Interpreters 39 "But having the 'hackimore' rope fastened to my belt I held to him until help arrived". 1971 A. P. MCINNES Dunlevy 86 "Her only riding equipment was a rawhide hackamore already on the horse's head."

bridle: (n)

etymology: OE. brídel for earlier *bridel (cf. brigdils Erf. Gl. 127, O.E. Texts 44) has various corresp. forms in WGer.: cf. OFris. bridel, MLG., MDu. breidel (bredel), Du. breidel, OHG., MHG. brittel; formed with instrumental suffix like hand-le, saddle, etc., from root of bregd-an to pull, twitch cf. Ger. zügel from ziehen to draw.]

defs: 1. a. The head-gear of the harness of a horse or other beast of burden, consisting of a head-stall, bit, and rein, by which the animal is controlled and guided. to give a horse the bridle: to abandon control of him; so to lay the bridle on his neck. to keep a horse up into his bridle: to keep him up to the full speed allowed by the degree of restraint in which he is held by the bridle. to go up well to his bridle: to be a free goer, not to hang back at the pressure applied.

a1000 Rune Poem xxi. (Gr.) Se brimhengest bridles ne yme. a1225 Ancr. R. 74 Bridel nis nout one ie horses mue. 1362 Langl P. Pl. A. IV. 20 Hong on him an heui Bridel to bere his hed lowe. c1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 1208 The fomy brydil with the bit of gold Governyth he. c1450 Merlin xxii. 407 He hilde the reyne of his bridill in his lefte arme. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 160 Whether he sholde haue also the sadell and brydell with the horse. 1601 BP. BARLOW Serm. Paules Crosse 59 A bridle hath raines and a bit. 1674 Ch. & Court of Rome 8 It being proverbial, That 'tis a greater shame to bring home the Bridle than steal the Horse. 1882 Illust. Sporting News 4 Feb. 502/2 Come on at a good canternot too fast, but keep them well up into their bridles. 1884 E. ANDERSON Mod. Horsemanship I. v. 17 In the double bridle we have the curb bit and the snaffle. b. Occas. applied to the bit alone; also fig.

c1400 Rom. Rose 3299 Take with thy teeth the bridel faste. 1579 Fulke Confut. Sanders 657 She commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle. 1602 Warner Alb. Eng. IX. xlvii. 222 More eagerly than earst I on the brydell byte. c. fig. with conscious reference to a horse.

1401 Pol. Poems (1859) II. 85 Who wil not amenden him, eue him the brydil. 1580 North Plutarch (1676) 362 Giving the bridle to a desperate man. 1583 Golding Calvin on Deut. ii. 8 Gods deliuering of the Children out of the Bondage of Egypt was not to lay the brydle in their necke that they might go when they listed. 1796 Burke Let. Noble L. 41 Calais the key of France, and the bridle in the mouth of that power. 1833 Wordsworth. Warning, O for a bridle bitted with remorse To stop your leaders in their headstrong course. 2. fig. A restraint, curb, check. Mil. A fortress keeping an enemy in check

3. = A scold's bridle; an instrument of punishment used in the case of scolds, etc., consisting of a kind of iron framework to enclose the head, having a sharp metal gag or bit which entered the mouth and restrained the tongue. .

4. The gesture described under Bridle v. 3.

5. Applied technically or descriptively to various things resembling a horse's bridle in their form or use: esp. a. Naut. A stout cable, or 'fast', by which a vessel is secured to moorings; also, the short piece of rope by which the bowline is attached to the leech or edge of the sail.

b. Phys. A ligament or membrane serving to check the motion of a part, or bind one part to another; a frænum; 'a narrow slip of living structure interposed between two orifices or the opposing walls of an abscess; a band stretching across a cicatrix' (Syd. Soc. Lex.); the septum of the nose (obs.).

c. Mech. A metal strip or band uniting two parts of a machine, or limiting their motion; also, the flanges which keep a slide-valve in position.

d. Agric. A bent piece of iron on the end of a plough-beam, to which the draught-tackle is attached; a clevis.

e. The cord or other work which strengthens or tightens the sides of a net.

f. Fire-arms. A small plate of metal in the interior of a gunlock, which holds the sear and tumbler in position.

. g. a cord attached to a kite that holds the latter at the proper angle in the wind; the kite-cord is attached to the bridle

6. Comb., as bridle-maker; also bridle-arm (cf. bridle-hand); bridle-bridge, a bridge fit for the passage of a horse, but not for vehicles; bridle-cable (see quot.); bridle-chain (Mining), one of the 'safety-chains to support a cage if the link between the cage and rope should break' (Raymond Mining Gloss.); bridle-cull (Thieves' cant), a highwayman; bridle-cutter, a bridle-maker; bridle-gate, a gate leading into a bridle-path; bridle-hand, the hand which holds the bridle in riding, the left hand; bridle-path, -road, -way, a path fit for the passage of a horse, but not of vehicles; bridle-pin, the pin which helps to secure the bridle of a gunlock; bridle-port, a port or port-hole in a ship's bow through which 'bridles' (see 5) may be run, or chase-guns fired. Also BRIDLE-BIT, -REIN

bridle (v):

1. a. trans. To put a bridle on (a horse), to furnish with a bridle; also (obs.), to guide or control with a bridle.

1393 Gower Conf. I. 110 Som prick her horse aside, And bridlen hem now in now oute. c1440 Promp. Parv. 50 Brydelyn, freno. 1530 Palsgr 939 To bridel, brider. 1833 Regul. Instr. Cavalry I. 42 The Recruits are to be taught to saddle and bridle. b. To furnish with a bridle in other senses.

1758 J.S. Le Dran's Observ. Surg. (1771) 332 The Membranes which cover the Muscles, and might bridle that Part of the Wound. c1838 C. BATHURST Nets 34 A net is bridled at its four outer margins when it is desirable to keep the meshes square. 1858 BRUSHFIELD Obsol. Punishm. 13 She [a scold] was ordered to be bridled and to be led through the town. c. (See BRIDLE n. 5g.)

2. fig. a. To curb, check, restrain, hold in.

c888 Aelfled Boeth. xxi, Bridla e he a esceafta nu mid ebridlode hæf. c1200 Ormin11664 Sone iss e bodi bridledd. a1225 Ancr. R. 74 if eni..ne bridle nout his tunge. 1382 Wyclif Isa. xlviii. 9 In my preissing I shal bridele thee, lest thou die. 1548 Udall Erasm. Par. Pref. 6 Also to bridle the insolencie. 1634 Milton Comus 887 Rise, rise..And bridle in thy headlong wave. 1713 Young Last Day I. 274 He bridles in the monsters of the deep. 1725 De Foe Voy. round World (1840) 41, I bridled my passion with all my power. 1756 C Lucas Ess. Waters II. 145 How is the action of iron bridled by sulphur? 1827 Hallam Const. Hist. (1876) III. 64 To bridle the clergy. 1878 R B Smith Carthage 397 Scipio bridled his indignation. b. In military sense: To hold in check, control.

3. To throw up the head and draw in the chin, (as a horse does when reined in), expressing pride, vanity, or resentment; to assume a dignified or offended air or manner: a. trans. and refl.

c1480 Ragman Roll 129 in Hazl. E.P.P. 75 Ful feire brydelyn ye your cowntenaunce, And propirly unto the brest adowne. 1606 Day Ile of Gulls II. iv. (1881) 52 Then doe I bridle my head like a malt-horse. 1752 Fielding Amelia Wks. (1775) X. 303 'Is she,' said my aunt, bridling herself, 'fit to decide between us?' 1848 A Bronte Tenant of Wildfell Hall I. iv. 71 She bridled her long neck and smiled. b. intr. see Bridling

c. Formerly also to bridle it. Obs.

d. Now commonly to bridle up (occas. back).

e. to bridle upon (a thing).

1748 RICHARDSON Clarissa (1811) II. xviii. 119, I can not indeed but say, bridling upon it, that I have heard famous scholars often and often say very silly things. 1754 Grandison IV. xv. 110 She took to herself, and bridled upon it, the praises and graces this adroit manager gave her. 4. intr. of a horse: to rise to or answer the bridle.

1929 Daily Express 5 Jan. 7/5 Mr. Wroughton's horse never bridled well at the fence... It slipped and brushed through the fence, hardly rising.

bitless bridle: "There are no results" although there is:

bitless: Not having a bit. 1605 Sylvester: Du Bartas (1621) 102 "The..bit-less Horse I ride." 1859 Blackw. Mag. Sept. 270/1 "With his bitless halter". Ibid. 271/1 "The Anazeh, bitless, and almost reinless." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hackamore vs bitless bridle

If Montanabw contends that "hackamore" has priority over "bitless bridle" because the OED lists "hackamore" but not "bitless bridle", then Montanabw will have to cite the relevant Wikipedia policy. Else, the contention would appear to be irrelevant. By the way, I am surprised the earliest instance of "hackamore" in the OED is 1850, not far earlier. --Una Smith (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... "hackamore" along with words like "chaps" and "Buckaroo" all trace to around 1850 because that's when the Mexican-American War occurred, and hence, when the US took over much of what had been Northern Mexico, incorporating the words like jaquima, vaquero and chaparajos into the English language. That is one thing dictionaries are good for, word history, and if you correlate them to world history, it all makes sense. The whole world owes a great deal to the Spanish vaquero as well as the Spanish knightly tradition, both stock horse training and dressage share roots in the la jineta and la brida traditions of Spain. (Another article on my "Gotta write this someday" list).Montanabw^(talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup attempt

I have made an attempt at cleaning up the article. Instead of doing it "live" and creating issues with editors that have been active on the page I have placed it here: User:Gtstricky/Sandbox. I tried to remove items that seemed to have POV issues as well as some comments that were missing citations. I also tried to simplify it a bit. I know nothing about horses but I do not think I changed the heart of the article. I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one else hollers, I would accept your edit as NPOV and a good base to expand from per the terms of the "truce." Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, G. AeronM (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical issue

This sentence: "A snugly-adjusted rope halter, with knots on the cheeks and noseband that are tied so as to be placed over pressure points of the face, and used two reins is somewhat similar to a sidepull." from the halter section is grammatically incorrect. I would fix it myself, but I'm just not up for being accused of violating every wiki policy in the book. Can someone else fix, please? AeronM (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, Curtis, although IMO, the sentence is still a bit ungainly. Can we simplify, for example: "A rope halter is sometimes used in place of a bridle, and operates in a similar manner to a sidepull."

This part: "with knots on the cheeks and noseband that are tied so as to be placed over pressure points of the face," is not entirely accurate as some types of riding halters do not have knots. I would also like to see some refs about the pressure points. One could argue that all parts of the face have pressure points as all parts have nerve endings.

This part: "used with two reins," is also not entirely accurate as sometimes a rope halter is used with one rein. I will be happy to provide some refs here if needed. AeronM (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular link

Una, I don't suppose I could talk you into replacing the circular link with the link to Riding Halter? AeronM (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Riding Halter is proposed for deletion, and it looks likely that the outcome will be deletion. Note the lead here now includes riding halter; does that do the trick? I did a thorough search today for "riding halter"; it has very few uses, far fewer than "bitless bridle", but they apply almost as broadly. The earliest use I found is pre-1900 but the limited context available online is insufficient to say exactly what it refers to. Wikipedia editors often are tempted to dictate usage, as in a training book (the one true meaning and all that), but such is not the role of an encyclopedia. The role of an encyclopedia is to report in a neutral manner on actual usage. --Una Smith (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I am still not happy with the top photo. It is redundant, as there is already a photo of a cross under next to that section, and it is a bad photo in that it appears the rein rings have been clipped together. AeronM (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Image:Bridle without bit.jpg has a lot of extraneous information in it. I would remove it from the article. (To link to an image without causing it to display, put a colon between the open square brackets and "Image".) --Una Smith (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. AeronM (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Styles

As an experiment, I removed the heading Cross-under and changed the style of the two paragraphs. I think it reads better. I'd like to do the same to the rest of the styles; if we don't use headings then we don't have to settle on one "correct" name for each style. --Una Smith (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworked "mechanical hackamore"; I suggest reworking all the others before sorting them into groups. Below is my working list of styles, in no particular order. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• mechanical hackamore
• hackamore — I suggest make Hackamore a redirect and put its text about the jaquima/bosal hackamore/California hackamore in Jaquima.
• sidepull/cavesson
• riding halter
• halter

Sidepull, cavesson, and "riding halter" are somewhat related, and I still don't know what to do about that Wheel of Fortune. More looking at pictures seems in order. Also, I am pretty sure the list is not complete. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit/riding halter

Una, checking your edit here, even I would have to admit this might be giving too much importance to the term 'riding halter.' (I know! I can't believe I just said that!) Could we add the term to the Halters with Reins section instead, or maybe even name that section "Riding halters?" AeronM (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff! Okay... Give me a moment to try another approach. --Una Smith (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try this. --Una Smith (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the addition under "Halter with Reins." I'm still not sure about saying a bitless bridle is sometimes called a riding halter. But I think it is accurate to say a riding halter is sometimes called a bitless bridle. Don't know if that makes sense or not....

on another topic....

[edit] Intro

At the risk of incurring the wrath of a certain editor, I am wondering if we need the introductory sentence: "This article is about about [sic] specific modern designs of bridles that do not use a bit. For details on the classic training hackamore and related designs, see hackamore." Is it needed here? --AeronM (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would delete it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also skip snarky references to other editors. --Una Smith (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a place for disambiguation statements so that people are led to the articles they actually want to find. If, as everyone says, people might type "bitless bridle" when looking for a hackamore, then disambig is appropriate. And as far as "snarky" goes, there has been too much of that all around, I do suggest everyone rereads WP:NPA, hmmm??? I would certainly hope that certain editors good faith edits are not being reverted solely because people are beginning to take things personally. That would be just sad, wouldn't it??? Montanabw^(talk) 08:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus on deleting the sentence? --AeronM (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure which "sentence" you are talking about. If the disambiguation statement, no, if something else, maybe, but remind me what we are even talking about here? Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See above in this very section. --AeronM (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanical hackamore

I think breaking it out in this way will be confusing to readers. I think the name should take priority over the construction, and therefore it should be kept with hackamore section. AeronM (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The names are rather confused; trying to rationalize the names is one source of much of our arguing here. The types of construction may provide more stable organization, and has the added virtue of serving as an anchor for text explaining the variations in names. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that construction is a better organizing principle. As I pointed out on the Hackamore talk page, most of the folks I know use the term for a mechanical hackamore. Nomenclature is just too confusing without some connection to actual construction. And I'm not familiar enough with some of the names I've heard to have any clue as to how they work.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...as I am also going to explain at the hackamore article, the mechanical hackamore appears to have been invented somewhere around the 1950's or so (Can't find any references to it prior to 1951, the book I have from the 1930's makes no mention of it) and probably just needs its own article. And yes, we DO need a disambiguation link at the top to the hackamore article. "Bitless bridle" is the newer term, and until 20 years ago or so, was merely descriptive -- "a hackamore is a type of bitless bridle," just as the automobile was once described as a "horseless carriage." But I'll save the details for sourcing at the hackamore article (Bennett's work traces the origins to the ancient Persians)

At present, Bitless bridle is used in the "merely descriptive" sense, and I think that is how it should be used on Wikipedia. As for it being a "newer term", newer than what? How proven? OED dates "hackamore" from 1850; a few seconds (!) research via Google dates "bitless bridle" from 1867. It is far from proven which term is older. In any case, the word "hackamore" is a neologism compared to the concept. And, conceptually, the hackamore is a kind of bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think "hackamore" can be called a neologism. Certainly the word is used with imprecision. I would agree that it is a type of bitless headgear, but I first learned "bridle" as comprising the headstall and the bit, so writing of "bitless bridle" without clarification is really no better than writing "hackamore".--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (sig applied by Una Smith)

"Hackamore" is a neologism compared to the concept, or compared to "jaquima"; how old is that word? Did "jaquima" originate in Spain, or is it a Colonial Spanish term, or is it newer than that? --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional taxonomist, it's important for us to separate questions of nomenclature (what it's called) from questions of circumscription (what it is). Inasmuch as there is no authoritative source for the nomenclature (there are apparently multiple "authoritative" sources), I agree with Una that this article should be arranged functionally, and I suggest that the synonymous names be included with each description. We've had similar fights in WP:PLANT over common names (some people want to use only the "official" common name of their country, and others, including me, prefer including every documented common name used in English text). I've said there, and I'll say here, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, Nomenclature is a stub and Circumscription is about something else (looks like a disambiguation is needed there); can you point us to clear explanations of these terms? --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's so much to do on the taxonomy articles. Nomenclature is a dab page; Binomial nomenclature is more what I mean, although the important point is that for organisms, there are rules for assigning names. I certainly didn't know of that meaning of "circumscription"; in the biological taxonomy sense, it refers to the decision of what individuals belong to a species or some other group. A more direct analogy for this would be to take a traditional jaquima to a horse show and ask people what it is. Some would say it's a hackamore, some would say it's a bitless bridle, some would say it's a jaquima, and I wouldn't be surprised for someone to say that it's a cavesson. If one had a box full of bitless headgear, one could sort them by their apparent structure and function, irrespective of the names. One could apply a name to each one, based on some criterion or another. Those are independent activities, and the example with the single piece of equipment called by four different names is in my opinion the best reason for grouping by structure and function.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest, I am sitting down with about 10 books, a screaming headache (thanks, all) and will be doing a bunch of footnoting work on the article to hopefully put this issue to rest. I don't know if I will get it all done tonight, this whole edit spat is making me quite literally sick, I just dreaded going online tonight because of this whole thing. I have no agenda but accuracy and the truth. Again, like I have said before, just because "lots of people" or "everyone says" certain things (Like the common error of describing schizophrenia as multiple personality disorder, or, my favorite, the people who call Alzheimer's disease "Oldtimer's disease") does not make them correct. Wikipedia is to be a neutral, referenced, verifiable source of information, and as such, I would appreciate it if you would quit blanking my material until I have had a chance to source it (my god, I was up until after midnight last night, don't the rest of you EVER sleep? ) Montanabw^(talk) 07:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please do not add material you know to be contentious without sources; source it first, then add it to the article. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw has changed Mechanical hackamore from a redirect here to an article; I have tagged both Mechanical hackamore and Bitless bridle with a merge proposal, to return the content of Mechanical hackamore to here, under Styles. --Una Smith (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—if any bitless headgear deserves its own article, it's the mechanical hackamore, since it is used more like a curb bit. Before we start merging at this level, what about the separate articles for all the parts of a bit and all the different bit types?--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just catching up here... I don't believe Mechanical Hackamore merits its own article. It should either be a subcategory of hackamore, or bitless bridle, or both, and should be redirected as such. --AeronM (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose keeping mechanical hackamore in this article, at least until its scope (circumscription) is clearer. Eg, would you include the Gluecksrad (jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Una Smith (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't include it, because it doesn't have leverage arms.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am persuaded. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and also agree with adding the LG. --AeronM (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant add LG bridle to bitless bridles. It certainly qualifies. --AeronM (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if I say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, do I need a source too?

Yes, if you want to put it on Wikipedia! --AeronM (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what is going to be "contentious" around here any more, I suspect that at this point, it's any edit with my name on it solely because it has my name on it. I broke out the mechanical hackmore material from the hackamore article, not this one. It is sufficiently neither fish nor fowl that it can go be all by itself. We have shorter articles on other gadgets, as Curtis says, this thing works completely different from either your bitless bridles or from a true hackamore. If you go read the stuff I added yesterday to the hackamore article, the roots of the word (however corrupted by the cowboys of the Amerian west) go back to the "Hakma," invented in the time of Darius of Persia, only 2500 years ago or so. Neologism, my ear! And as far as "bitless bridle" as a generic term, I am still just laughing because it was about a year ago that the last Dr.Cook fan nailed my butt to the wall for daring to call any cross-under other than Dr. Cook's invention a "bitless bridle." LOL. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Better too many sources than too few. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of this issue, please?

I expanded and extensively sourced the mechanical hackamore article, I really don't think there is any need to merge it now, so removing the tag. Montanabw^(talk) 08:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss a consensus vote? --AeronM (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't "vote," we argue endlessly (within reason) until there is some sort of meeting of the minds. But more to the point here, there is no need to merge the articles, as the other article has been properly expanded out per wikipedia guidelines. That's all. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, the above is Montanabw's opinion. My opinion at this time is that a separate article on mechanical hackamores is okay, provided it does not become a POV fork. Maybe not just okay, but necessary. POV forking can be fixed; everything in Wikipedia can be fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LG Bridle (aka Gluecksrad)

Do we have a consensus to add? --AeronM (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but explain what it is, photo if possible. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Una gave a link to a photo. It sure ain't a mechanical hackamore. I would like to see an explanation of how it works. And is it Glücksrad, with the "ue" the result of not having an umlaut?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pull on the reins rotates the wheel, effectively shortening all 3 straps a little, hence putting a little pressure on the nose, chin, and poll. Yes, ue = ü. But what does "LG" stand for? This thing isn't a mechanical hackamore but it shares some physics with one. The diversity of mechanical hackamores that I have seen in person is huge. And take a gander at "mechanical hackamore" on Google Images... --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here in the US it is now known as "LG Bridle." Used to be called the "Happy Wheel." No, it is not a mechanical hackamore, except maybe by a very loose definition. It is most definitely Bitless bridle, so should appear in this article IMO. --AeronM (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe LG stands for “Lehmenkühler (the inventor's name) Glücksrad (=Wheel of Fortune or Happy Wheel)" --AeronM (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settle this calmly

If this edit war doesn't stop, I'll protect both this article and Hackamore. Since I don't know a single thing about horses and have no prior involvement, I can be totally neutral. In this thread, be concise, to the point, and calm. Each side please list bullets to present their side of the bitless bridle/hackmore "which is a subset of which" issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bitless bridle is a type of hackamore
  • list evidence....
  • list evidence....

• Hackamore is a type of bitless bridle
  • The word "hackamore" is a corruption of "jáquima", meaning halter, meaning a headstall without a bit (see Hackamore); thus, a hackamore used for riding is a bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Early users of the word "hackamore" applied it to any bitless bridle and sometimes also to any halter. See Rollins (1922) concerning his years on the "Range" before 1892. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Multiple verified reliable sources (some cited with relevant quotes above) describe the hackamore as a bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • list evidence....

---

• Hackamores are hackamores, but they can be mentioned in passing in this article with appropriate wikilinking as a type of headgear for controlling a horse without a bit. I can live with that.
• Bitless bridles are a variant on the hackamore to the extent that they use a noseband instead of a bit. However, some modern designs that have developed inthe 20th century do not operate on ancient hackamore principles, so they are in a gray area
• The word "bridle" inherently implies attachment of a bit, so the description of "hackamore" as a "a type of bitless bridle" is a simile ("my love is like a red, red rose") more than an interchangable term.
• "Bitless Bridle" with capitalization is a patented invention that has been a patented name for about 10 years

I explained a lot of this in the recent edits I made to hackamore, the word goes back to "Hakma" in Ancient Persia at the time of Darius the Great, circa 500 BC or so. This was a heavy noseband with an added third rein (still seen today in both the longeing cavesson and the mecate rein of the bosal-style hackamore) that was a unique historical development and a major technological improvement upon the old rope around the nose and/or neck. It became part of the Arabic language as "hakma" referencing the noseband and šakīma, (bit),or šakama, meaning a bit or bridle. When the Arabs invaded Spain, they brought a lot of horse words with them, and the term for a headstall with a heavy noseband became xaquima, and then jaquima. (Pronounced, roughly, "hakima"). When the concept came to the Americas, English-speaking people altered it (or "corrupted" it if you will; English-speakers tend to do that) into "hackamore." I would refer you to the "Origins" section of the hackamore article (this version) for refereneces.

"Halter" is a wholly different concept with different word origins and includes not only horse headgear, but things you put on cows and goats, animals that generally are not ridden. See the hsitory section of this version of halter. Some people DO ride in halters, Tazzle22's comment that insurance companies are not always happy about this is true, and it does depend a lot on the specific design of the headgear; my guess (?) is that Tazzle is using (can you confirm your gear, T22?) either some type of heavy cavesson or a cross-under, both of which offer significantly more control than a "halter."

I can in part agree with Tazzle22 that semantics is a huge problem. Is a word being misused (like the common misuse of schizophrenia when one is really talking about multiple personality disorder)or is language changing so that what was incorrect is now correct, like spelling "doughnut" "donut"? or "Jello" instead of "gelatin"? There is also the question of formal and informal use. We all know that there are terms in English we use in every day spoken useage that are sloppy and are not to be used in formal writing. (For example, in horses, the word "stud" is used colloquially in spoken English to refer to a stallion, however in formal writing, a "stud" is either the farm - especially in UK/European use - where the stallion lives (usually with other stallions) or a 2x4 in the wall of a house!)

I maintain that, based on the fact that we can trace the English word hackamore to the 19th century, and its linguistic roots to antiquity, with "halter" having different roots, that one could call a hackamore a "type of bitless headgear" which it certainly is, but the word "hackamore" predates "bitless bridle," which was a mere descriptor until about the 1970's when the increasing number of gadgets came on the scene that didn't fit the heavy noseband model that we think of as a hackamore, including the mechanical hackamore and the "cross-under bitless bridle". Sure, there are those who describe a hackamore as a type of halter, there are also those who describe it as a type of bridle, (Una cited several examples of each above, in fact) but to me the trump card comes from the experts: One of the heavy-hitters in the field of equestrian history is Dr. Deb Bennett, who has written extensively on the history of horses and horsemanship, whose work I have cited in the Hackamore article. There are also a significant number of respected hackamore reinsman, Ed Connell in particular.

While Rollins is a source on cowboys in general, I cannot locate sufficient biographical information to tell which tradition he wrote about, nor how western scholars evaluate his work, but there is a distinction between the cowboy of the west in general, and the hackamore reinsman in particular -- the difference between the generalist and the specialist. The Texas cowboy tradition also took a lot of Spanish equipment and sort of mixed the tradition with stuff from the Eastern USA, plus a few uniquely Texas twists, and thus there are two significant sub-schools of horse training, the so-called "California" or "buckaroo" tradition being the more "pure" form. (This is true of other horse training schools, amongst English riders the Classical dressage tradition is regarded as the most "pure" form, with competitive Dressage seen as a departure in some respects)

The whole language issue really heated up about 2000 when Dr. Cook's "Bitless Bridle" was formally introduced at Equitana and got a lot of positive publicity. Prior to the last decade or so, at least in the USA, most folks generally called any type of bitless headgear a "hackamore," even though that was sort of a broad generic use that didn't quite fit either. To the best of my knowledge, the word "hackamore" was also seen in UK English as well, though the concept was simply less familiar because the Spanish vaquero tradition was a lot stronger in the United States, where western riding was a big factor. Australia has borrowed both from the USA western riding traditons and Europe both England and, to a lesser extent Spain, and to the extent that usage has changed from incorrect form to legitimate regional dialectical variation, I have no problem with saying "Australians call this doohicky an X," but while I am most certainly willing to cite this material as time permits, I also happen to have direct knowledge of this equipment, who uses it, what it is called, and where it came from.

I have no interest in playing dueling credentials or engaging in original research, but I do have background as a horse person, as a fourth-generation resident of the American west, and as a person with a history background that is reasonably extensive when it comes to the history of the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. There is the perception here that I am "anti" natural horsemanship, which is not the case -- I am anti the hype of the modern movement, which claims to be the first and only "humane" method of training horses, even though the tradition itself dates back centuries. I actually have the deepest respect for several of the core practitioners, and being a Montana horse person, I have crossed paths with a couple of these guys back before they got famous. (I also have little respect for others that I consider primarily showbiz and flim-flam artists) And for a couple of them, give them another 20 years and they will have invented dressage - all by themselves!

I am going on and on here and shall stop soon. Actually, as far as I am concerned, this article isn't horrible as it sits, and I have come around to it being a basic overview of bitless headgear for people who type in "bitless bridle" as a search phrase, but the problem has come from folks 1) trying to promote their own personal invention and, to a lesser extent, 2) POV edits from the fan club of Dr. Cooks' offically patented "Bitless Bridle" concept, which is gaining a significant following. Problem is, a) the studies by Dr. Hilary Clayton, a professor at Michigan State and a dressage competitor, are somewhat undermining some of Cook's basic claims, and thus the headgear, while it probably does no real harm, is also not quite what it was promoted to be. B) The misunderstanding of the differences between bridles, hackamores, halters and the "bitless bridle" concept is making for a really useless consumption of time. Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to start archiving. --AeronM (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Has someone made a Request for Arbitration? --Una Smith (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:RFAR, I'm just trying to stop the edit war in a calm way. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had died down, but perhaps I'm wrong. --AeronM (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the defining of a bitless bridle is fraught with the difficulties of semenatics and the individual preconceptions of us all depending on our knowledge and experience. Even the defining of a halter is open to interpretation and there can be , for the purposes of riding little practical difference between a rope halter and some bosals / bitless bridle but a huge difference in effect between a rope halter and a webbing halter / headcollar ( terms interchangable in many countries). However the definition can be crucial for insurance purposes as one can ride in public in a bridle but a halter is often declined ..... depite many horses being safer in a rope halter than a bitted bridle.

May I also call on the author to ammend the article to include DRIVING in the definition. I know of several people in the UK, USA and Scandinavia who drive bitless and I personally drive my horse in an open bitless bridle with the full knowledge and support of the BDS and my insurance company. I am new to wikipaedia and do not know how , or if I can , alter the page. tazzle22 Tazzle22 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I know in the UK they are not "road legal," but I am not familiar with any insurance company restrictions here in the US. And yes, I would be amenable to adding driving to the article.

I think one thing we all need to keep in mind is: who is our reader? Is it likely to be someone very familiar with horses and horse tack terminology? Or more likely to be someone who is not as familiar and looking for information? In that case, I think the whole bitless bridle vs. hackamore issue is not as important, and therefore we should focus on general descriptions and photos while keeping NPOV. Just mO. --AeronM (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer to see a resolution of this issue without resorting to the big guns. My initial concern here was that someone was promoting their own personal product, that seems to now be less of an issue that just POV edits with insufficient documentation and a lot of personal attacks. Further, it is spilling over into other articles. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did edit the article some days ago to abstract the "riding" to any manner of steering as opposed to leading, but my edits were reverted. Certainly driving (including ground driving) qualifies, and arguably so does vaulting. (When training people to vault, the horse is often worked on two reins, similar to lungeing.) --Una Smith (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round two

OK. I've read all the comments here and on Talk:Hackamore. I'll probably ask some dumb questions because all this horse terminology is a foreing language to me. Some points...

• It seems the term starts out in ancient times as "hakma" in Persia, then to Spain/Mexico as "jáquima", then morphs into "hackamore" circa 1850 by the language-corrupting English speaking Americans. Is this so? (just yes or no, no essays)

ANS:

• Yes, by English speaking Americans in the western US. --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, and Una is, I think, an Australian, but provides no source material for regional usage in her country. And, these gadgets came from the Western USA (via Mexico and Colonial Spain) to Australia unless we are talking about yet another product. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of the dispute seems to be dependent upon regional variations in equipment and terminology. Is this so? (just yes or no, no essays)

ANS:

• Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. --AeronM (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• No, identical misperceptions and mispronunciations occur in the western USA too. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• A hackamore is a bridle without a bit. Can a bitless bridle be a hackamore? (here one paragraph should do it)

ANS:

• Advocates of the hackamore bridle increasingly insist it is sui generis, hence as I understand their own arguments a hackamore is not a halter, a hackamore is a bridle without a bit, and most bitless bridles are not hackamores. --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. --AeronM (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridles have bits per the OED definition, but that useage is loose. "Bitless bridle" is something of an oxymoron. But a "bitless bridle" can be a sort of hackamore, as it uses a noseband and not a bit to control the animal. I admit that there is terminology flux, but I think it is triggered by a commercial product introduced to the market in 2000, Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• How is a bitless bridle different from a hackamore? Can a hackamore be bitless bridle? (hint: to me, the photos in the two articles look like they're the same basic thing, ie, is all this debate about is mere preference in terminology?) (here one paragraph should do it)

ANS:

• A hackamore is a bitless bridle made of rope, and having a bosal (a relatively stiff rope noseband). --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me. A hackamore is a bitless bridle made of tubular (not flat) material; tubular vs flat is important because it dictates many other aspects of construction and design. --Una Smith (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• A hackamore describes a more limited type of bitless bridle. The term bitless bridle is generally all-inclusive. I.e.: All hackamores are bitless bridles, but not all bitless bridles are hackamores. --AeronM (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It can also be made out of leather, the noseband may be less stiff, and also of leather, and it may lack a bosal knot.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Purists assert mechanical hackamores are not hackamores, yet there is no question mechanical hackamores are bridles without bits. Both mechanical hackamores and hackamores are bitless bridles.

• This is the crux of the matter. My original position was that the cross-under is the main "Bitless bridle" mostly because of the neologism coined by Dr. Cook. Hackamores have nosebands that are heavier, sometimes braided leather, braided rawhide, or smooth leather. (True Bosals are never made of "rope" Some sidepulls are made of rope) Hackamores don't tighten up or squeeze when you pull on the reins, cross-unders do. Bennett refers to the Hakma, the Cavesson and the Bosal all as descendants. I can make a case (though I don't care that much) that the sidepull and jumping cavesson are hackamores, but, the [[mechanical hackamore] is not. The patented "Bitless Bridle" has a light noseband that is not solid, works by straps tightening around the head and is a paented variant of the "cross-under" that has been around since sometime in the 1970s (have not seen a source for it prior, not that there isn't one, but earliest I can find an example is 1977) Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• How is a bitless bridle different from the "Britless Bridle" that recently appeared? (NOTE: Pushing a item for purchase is a potential COI and blockable, see WP:COI and WP:SPAM). (here one paragraph should do it)

ANS:

• A bitless bridle is any bridle designed for use without a bit. It is a generic, descriptive term. The Bitless Bridle(TM) is just one bitless bridle, among many others, on the market now. (NOTE: AeronM is the inventor of a different bitless bridle, and a novice Wikipedia editor, and has not pushed any product since learning that marketing is not welcome here.) --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is a minor point of contention in that "bridle" is defined in some circles to be the combination of a headstall and a bit (bridle used to imply this, but it may not any more), which would make "bitless bridle" an oxymoron. I don't hold this view, but I imagine I could rustle up some non-editor horsemen who do.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• If bitless bridle is an oxymoron, so what? --Una Smith (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• There is only one "Bitless Bridle" (TM) (capitalized) which is Dr. Cook's bridle. There are many kinds of 'bitless bridle,' including Dr. Cook's. --AeronM (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And that is where our #1 disagreement is. No dictionary anywhere defines "bitless bridle," whereas the words "halter" and "Bridle" and "hackamore" all have roots that go back centuries. We are making a descriptive phrase into a title, but it is a neologism. Not long ago, the Cook advocates were jumping down the throats of anyone who called just any old headgear without a bit a "bitless bridle" (I can't find the diff now, I even got nailed for it here and clarified my own usage.) The saying "the hackamore is a type of bitless bridle" is like calling a bagel "bread with a hole in it, thus a type of doughnut." Well, kinda, but not exactly. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree that the term 'bitless bridle' is a neologism. Can you support? --AeronM (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round three

• So a hackamore is a bitless bridle (made of rope) but most bitless bridles are not hackamores? (T/F) — Rlevse • Talk • 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ANS:

• That's a reasonable way to look at it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• True. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Correct. --AeronM (talk)

NO! HORRORS! I never got my stuff into round two due to several edit conflicts! Please read. Above. But in short, my summary:

• A hackamore is a type of headgear used to control a horse (while riding) with a noseband instead of a bit. It consists of a headstall and a heavy noseband of set diameter. Not that long ago, it was the catchall generic term for any headgear that controlled a horse with a noseband and not a bit (and bosal hackamore people had fits about the mechanical hackamore being called a "hackamore" at all)
• A bridle is a type of headgear that uses a bit and is the most common device used to control horse while riding or driving. Sometimes bridle is confused with "headstall" The bridle is the complete unit, the "headstall" is the part that goes over the horse's head, behind the ears, and holds everything on. Both bridles and hackamores have headstalls.
• A halter is a type of headgear primarily used to lead and tie up animals in general, including horses. Some people ride with them in place of a bridle (a different dispute over whether this is safe or not)
• A "Bitless Bridle" (capitalized) is an invention of Dr. Robert Cook, introduced to the market in 2000, it is a variation of a gadget called, generically, a "cross under bridle" or "cross under hackamore"
• A "bitless bridle" (not capitalized) is the topic of dispute. It is more of a hackamore than it is a bridle, but if it wants its own article, I haven't proposed it for deletion, but I think it should be confined to an explanation of the various cross-under designs.

Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that it should be confined to cross-under designs, as there are others. --AeronM (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • AH, so now the locus of the dispute seems to be the definition of "bitless bridle". Hmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe. If it is a question of narrow vs broad circumscription, then the argument for narrow circumscription is this: "bitless bridle" should be reserved for the bridle patented by Robert Cook, and perhaps also the earlier bridle patented by Edwin Meroth, because Robert Cook claims a trade mark on "Bitless Bridle", and because "bitless bridle" does not occur in the OED. The argument for broad circumscription is that the absence from OED is not relevant because "bitless bridle" is a phrase; the trade mark claim is not relevant because the phrase predates the claim; and "bitless bridle" has been used to mean any bridle without a bit since 1867, if not earlier. --Una Smith (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• I would also submit that the popularity of bitless bridles seems to be increasing recently (I can provide refs if needed). It may be a case where attributable sourcing (e.g.the OED) has not yet caught up to current usage. --AeronM (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• In my estimation, the issue is the definition of "bridle": in some usages, a bridle cannot be bitless. Wikipedia, being descriptive, must include those usages, and we all have to expect that some Wikipedia users will come here with the expectation to find things in specific places. We must accommodate that (that's why dab pages are so popular). One solution might be to call this article Bitless headgear (horse) or some other neutral term, have Bitless bridle redirect to it, mention Bitless Bridle™ and the generic "bitless bridles" in the article, mention in Bridle the variant uses of the term, and link to [Hackamore]] and Mechanical hackamore every place where someone might think to look. That way, we've covered all the bases, the name of this article has been made explicitly NPOV, and users (as contrasted to editors) can find the information regardless of their preconceptions.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone is going to search for an article called "Bitless headgear." If the majority would search under bitless bridle, why not call it that, instead of having the redirect? I think the term "Bitless bridle" is notable enough to warrant the title. --AeronM (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We my be getting to a resolution (thanks Rlevse!). Curtis has a solution that I like, but Aeron is also correct that a lot of people will probably do a search for bitless headgear using either the phrase "bitless bridle" or "hackamore." However, both are specific enough designs that neither page should be a mere disambig or a redirect. I think that appropriate disambiguation statements at the beginning of hackamore and bitless bridle, each cross-referencing the other may help. This leaves unresolved the question of whether a hackamore is a bitless bridle or if a bitless bridle is a hackamore, but given that even the experts have no meeting of the minds on that topic (most hackamore experts wrote prior to the invention -- or popularization, at least-- of the cross-under), but I could live with something like "a hackamore is one type of bitless headgear" in this article, with appropriate cross-refs, and likewise in hackamore, a statement like "a type of headgear that controls the horse by means of a lightweight noseband is sometimes called a bitless bridle" would be suitable. If there was a need for a full-blown disambiguation page, maybe Bitless headgear would be an appropriate title for a disambiguation page that lists ALL the assorted articles. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, FWIW, I disagree with Una's claim that "bitless bridle" dates as a term to 1867. Her sources do seem to use it as a descriptive simile for hackamore, but she also shows us others that say it's a type of halter. Either way, this is like saying "a bagel is a sort of doughnut." That doesn't mean a bagel IS a doughnut. Unless "doughnut" can be etymologically traced to mean "any bread product with a hole in it! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion It does seem the core of this issue is that definition of bridle. Closely related are the etymologies of the terms related thereto and what appears to be supporters of some sort of modern day movement within the horse community. I can't see either side 'giving in' to the other. I can see merit to both arguments. So here's my suggestion...Bitless bridle should be an article covering all types and interpretations of that term and deal with each community with a different school of thought. Within that article should be a section on Hackamore which should be more or less a copy of the (hopefully well-written) lead of Hackamore and have a {{main}} link back to the hackamore article. The hackamore article should describe how it's different from other bitless bridles and notate any opposing views. This suggestion is standard wiki policy; nothing earth shattering here folks. And while we're at it, everyone stay calm, be civil, and learn wiki policies. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I support your solution 100%. I would be absolutely delighted to bring the hackmore article into line with the above suggestions, in fact it is pretty much already there, as far as I can tell. (Though suggestions from someone NPOV on this issue would be respectfully considered.). But see last set of posts, below... I think that a simple disambig link at the beginning of each article would work better than making the hackamore article into a disambig page. Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive and clean start?

Aeron, you may have a solution; I am in favor of archiving this whole discussion and starting clean, without referencing any of the old debates. As for what is "settled" or not, sometimes "settled" takes 2 or 3 days, even a week, because people have a real life and may not get onto Wikipedia everyday. Also, people giving up because they are just too darn tired to keep fighting isn't "settled," it means that we are worn out, grumpy, feel beat up and so on. I personally think this article should ultimately have some balance between the plusses and minuses of various designs, and there has to be criticism with the positives. Sometimes when there are strong viewpoints that make true NPOV difficult, like, say abortion, the best that can be done is to "teach the controversy," and explain each side in a way that the advocates of a given position consider to be a reasonably fair representation of their views. I also think that, if possible, debates about other articles need to not spill over here any more than they have to. It's tough with overlap between halter, hackamore, mechanical hackamore and this article, but let's try. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, you may be fighting, but I am not. I am calmly discussing the problems with this article. I have devoted considerable time to it, and also to mentoring Aeron who in my opinion has more reason to feel "beat up" than you do. The time to archive is when the article is stable; now is not that time. By the way, it seems "hackamore" is your favorite branch on the bush and you try to describe the entire bush in terms of how far it is from your branch. This article and all related to it are in need of {{globalize}} tags. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is generally bad practice to archive things directly related to ongoing matters. IE, no, don't archive yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, no archive, but Una, you ARE throwing fat on the fire, you offer no Australian sources for your contentions, but only throw out assorted USA refs, taken out of context. And implying that I am stupid and don't know what I am talking about. Oddly enough, I am not a hackamore fanatic, I actually do 90% of my own training in a snaffle, but incorrect material is incorrect material. Sorry Rlevse, that was snarky, but I am sick of this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, what does Australia have to do with this? "Hackamore" originates in western North America. Re your accusations against me, please make diffs and use them per WP:CIVIL; personal accusations do not belong here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a slow dialup and have no interest in dealing with diffs, this issue is taking up several hours a night that I wish did not. You've made a couple of snide little cracks, you know where they are, I'm not going to argue further on the point. As for the Australian thing, you are arguing that there are regional useage disputes, I am asking for your sources to show that this is a regional useage issue as opposed to simply incorrect useage. That's all. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One has to wonder whether it's worth it? If you do not wish to spend several hours a night on this article, then don't! --AeronM (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where it all started

I just had to laugh.... when I went back and read the original stub... it sounds fairly innocuous. Could all this have been avoided??! ==AeronM (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, how about with you not reverting the original edits by User:Ealdyth, who made the first good faith attempt to create a balanced article? Will add diffs in a sec. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riding Halter to merge here

AfD result here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ACtually, no one has closed it yet.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Curtis is correct. I saw not a result, but another opinion out of place. I'll ask the contributor to move it. --Una Smith (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is now merged. I will shorten the section on riding halter if needed. --AeronM (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riding halter

Hi Una. Good edits to bitless bridle, esp. disambig. I am still thinking that the second paragraph gives too much emphasis to the riding halter! And the section seems redundant with the third section, and with the "Halters With Reins" section. Can we merge with "Halters with Reins" section and call the section "Riding Halters"? Another editor made a similar suggestion, although I am having trouble locating the comment just now.... --AeronM (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ahhh, found it here. --AeronM (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, the current text describes a "riding halter" as a close cousin of a rope halter, and different from a web (flat) halter. But on most of the UK web storefronts I checked for "riding halter", the product is a web halter. So, I suggest invert the structure of the paragraph/section to first specify that the category is something like "bitless bridle derived from a rope halter" then explain these are commonly known as riding halters (in the US). Then, make a separate section on the category "bitless bridle derived from a flat halter", also noting they are commonly known as riding halters (in the UK). Some focussed searching of web sites will help to further define the current usage patterns. If that is too much bother, make the category simply "riding halter" but explain that these are bitless bridles derived separately from different styles of halters. --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I still want some mention of halters with reins, though; those are items designed and normally used as halters, not bridles. I would put them at the very end of the article, as they are the absolute least bridle like of the lot. Mentioning them helps to demonstrate that "riding halters" are not just halters with reins. --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --AeronM (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree here that "halter" is a better section heading, and then break down into halters that have been specially modified for riding, and then how people ride in ordinary halters. My opinion of the lack of safety of both styles is known, but I guess we must agree to disagree on that. My opinion aside, Una IS correct that ordinary halters are used as riding gear. And probably everyone has done it once in a while, even if we know better (Confession: I am guilty of cooling down hot horses by riding with a halter, but they are well-trained, tired out AND in an arena when I do it-and all we do is walk, and walk and walk...). Robert M. Miller's book (p. 229 if you want to look it up) has a 1955 photo of a rope halter he rigged with a heavy knot at the jaw that he describes as "loosely" like a bosal. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about 'halter' as a section heading. But I do agree that there can be two sections, riding halter and halters with reins, although it may confuse some readers..... --AeronM (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

Have added new section (second para). Feedback is welcome. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss additions/edits here first, tho. Thanks! --AeronM (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is what starts these spats in the first place, I spend an hour trying to make a truly good faith edit, cited everything I wrote, went to some source material that you yourself used, and then you revert significant amounts of it with no explanation. Here is what I added and you deleted. Why should any of this not be in the article?

1) Expansion of disambiguation:

We had already reverted a similar earlier addition at least once. It is not needed here. --AeronM (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2) Attempt to use neutral language and expand history section (my edit in bold): "It is likely that the first domesticated horses were ridden with some type of noseband-based headgear, either made of sinew, leather, or rope.

Your addition constitutes Original Research. In fact, it is thought that originally a neck rope may have been used. See Source. --AeronM (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3) Added material trying to explain why it is uncertain if bits came before hackamores or nosebands or bitless bridles by adding: "There is evidence of the use of bits, located in two sites of the Botai, dated about 3500-3000 BC.^[2] Nose rings were used on the equids portrayed on the Standard of Ur, circa 2600 BCE - 2400 BCE." Then I go on to explain the hackamore and such, which, thank you for keeping that in. (Deleting this one was the least irritating and maybe it is not needed, but it puts everything in context)

Per Una's recent edit, I think we need to add this back in, so I did. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4) And what on earth problem could you possibly have with this sourced statement that comes from a web domain you yourself were citing to? "In the middle of the 20th century, bitless design innovations shifted to assorted refinements of the mechanical hackamore, but by the 1980s, the modern "cross-under" design developed, with several variations and innovations between 1982 and 2007.^[3]

5) Deleted new heading of ==Cross-Under== for the section describing the various cross-under designs. If you are making this article an overview of the various types of bitless headgear, then subcats for each "family" of gear helps the reader understand the material. By deleting the category, are you acknowledging that the only bitless bridles ARE in fact the cross-unders, (I don't think you are) or what?

I didn't intentionally delete Cross Under section. I think it did that when I reverted something else.... history is unclear. --AeronM (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that was a good faith edit, I would be interested in understanding what the problem was with that material. #3 I can sort of get, if you don't want to talk about bits at all, but the rest??? Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer with an analogy. There are generally two schools of writing... I liken them to sculpting: the first school sculpts in clay, adding a little here and a little there until the piece is finished. The other school sculpts with stone, starting with a very large block, and then chipping and carving away at it until the essence is revealed. I tend to be from the first school. You tend to be from the second. Neither is better than the other, they are just different. What it means is, you have to be prepared for your additions, many of which are quite long, to be chiseled away at. We need to get to the core of the information without adding a lot of peripheral information and details. I left a lot of what you had written, but felt some streamlining was necessary. --AeronM (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting there, so I'm taking these pages off my watch list. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hackamore issue

I absolutely am opposed to redirecting hackamore as jaquima. That article is stable, heavily sourced, and absolutely defensible. You will find most horse books say "hackamore (or jaquima)" when describing bosal-based equipment, i.e "Hackamore" is the English word. Period. (Derived from a Spanish word, as are so many horse words) I can find 20 books and probably a zillion web sites to support this (I don't really want to, PITA to cite, but I can). It is of ancient roots, even to the word and its pronunciation, and you have yet to produce ONE SINGLE SOURCE for any other proposition. Certainly you have yet to produce a source for the mechanical hackamore being a "real" hackamore, when in fact, it is simple to find 10 sources that explain, adamantly, that it isn't. The bosal is the noseband only, the hackamore is the complete unit, headstall, bosal, mecate, and when used, fiador. There is most certainly no consensus on this issue of disambiguation, and if you keep insisting on degrading the hackamore article into a disambiguation page, I will submit the issue to some sort of third party arbitration because I can't see any other way to solve this. I suggest for the sake of peace in the family, we just agree to keep both articles, editing as appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

most horse books say "hackamore (or jaquima)" makes my point: the article title should be Hackamore (jáquima) and Hackamore should be a disambiguation page. No one here is claiming that a mechanical hackamore is a "real" hackamore; on the contrary, that is another reason why Hackamore should be a disambiguation page. Hackamore is stable in part because I have refrained from editing it, pending resolution of Curtis's proposal to make it a disambiguation page. The topic needs work. What Montanabw proposes amounts to maintaining a POV fork, which this article is now, and I won't let it remain that way. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Every bridle in use today has equally ancient roots because (as far as we know), they all share a single common ancestor. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, sigh, you are not understanding. "Jaquima" is a Spanish language word, "Hackamore" is the English language word. I suggest we take Rlevse's suggestion and leave both articles in place, graciously include cross-wikilinks, and let it go. You have no source for your "common ancestor" comment; the hakma design of heavy noseband came AFTER the bit; headstalls may have a common source because there are only so many ways the laws of physics will let you keep something on a horse's head, but the noseband or bit thing are two different families. I suppose we could as easily say English and Spanish are the same language because they both have Indo-European roots? You take things out of context and claim they mean the opposite of what was intended. I have no idea why you are so emotional about saying the hackamore article, first written in 2005, is a "POV fork" when it's the older article, and (now) thoroughly sourced. Can we please just let this go? You've won on the issue of "bitless bridle" being a free-standing article, that's a significant victory, can't you call it good? Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Comment

Just wanted to say I think this article is starting to look pretty good. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph (Origins)

I think the paragraph has lost something. First of all, the very first sentence says it's likely the bitless bridle came first, which is then immediately put in doubt by the second sentence. I think the second sentence is unnecessary. Also, I had deleted the redundant sentence about the materials not surviving through time (last sentence), and it is back. Again. And still redundant. The third and fourth sentences are awkward together. Why the "however"? I would like to revert back to a previous version which sounded/flowed a bit better. --AeronM (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's missing is the context that bits don't disentegrate, so archaeologists found them dated to around 3500, but logic suggests that obviously SOMETHING was used to control horses for the 1000 years prior to that, but because rope and sinew disentegrate, we can't "prove" anything about design. I'll leave it for now, but the same web site you refrence that calls the "bitless bridle" original headgear also claims horses were domesticated 50,000 years ago, hence its entire validity (other than the research on the patents in the last 100 years) is really pretty iffy. Given that even Lascaux only dates back 16,000 years, and that is mostly evidence of hunting, not domestication, well, it's just a very badly researched claim that calls the whole article into question. Any number of published authors have speculated that early headgear was probably first a lasso of some sort, then probably a halter, if I feel like doing the research, I'll update the article later. As for the term "bitless bridle," well, we've been over this and over this, I am tired of wasting my breath. I have other articles on my watchlist, and over time I hope you will learn that "NPOV" means you present all verifiable, sourced sides of the issue, including mine. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adios!

It has been my pleasure to write and help edit this article. I will check in from time to time to see how it looks. Good luck! --AeronM (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed I decided to stick around. I knew montana would have missed me too much.  : ) . --AeronM (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What's amazing is that, occasionally, we have even found some things we agree on. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy, ain't it? --AeronM (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't eat puppies and torture bunnies. LOL Montanabw^(talk) 03:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LG Bridle

I want to re-propose to add the LG bridle in the styles section. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely belongs here. --Una Smith (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to contact them to see if we can use a photo. --AeronM (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Voice of experience speaking: People saying you can use their photo on wikipedia won't satisfy the wikigods, it has to be released either GDFL or public domain so everyone and the universe can use it for free. Some manufacturers won't do that. Just FYI...if you succeed, no problem, but a lot of "permission" given by professional photographers and owners of patented designs won't be good enough for wiki. The easier thing to do is, if you own the equipment in question, slap it on a local horse, take a shot with your own digital and upload that. If you own the image, you can do whatever you want with it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I contacted LG and they have agreed to let me use a photo (and license it under public domain) for use in the article. --AeronM (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a good photo on the German Wikipedia; I just have not bothered yet to move it to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used more easily on other Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide the link to the photo, maybe Aeron can move it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)