Talk:Horse/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sleep while standing

It seems that horses (and possibly others from equidae family and beyond) sleep standing up. So, why hasn't this been mentioned in the article? I find it most peculiar for any animal to do so, yet there's no mention of this oddity, nor how they accomplish it. --Acolyte of Discord 17:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Horses have a musculo-skeletal "stay" system in their legs that allows this; however, horses are usually in something akin to a light doze when they do. Horses also lay down to sleep, and actually should do so for their health. Overall, however, horses just simply don't sleep all that much, maybe four hours in 24. Foals sleep, and sleep lying down, the most. Some old horses rarely lay down because it just hurts old, arthritic joints too much for them to do so. Horses are a prey animal where alertness means survival. It's one of those things that horse people tire of discussing because it gets into the realm of an "urban legend," so to speak. I suppose a brief mention would be useful, both the mechanism and the myth...but...sigh...Someone else can do it, not me... Montanabw 20:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I never thought about it before, but one of the advantages a horse gains by being a member of a herd is that it can sleep part of the day knowing that the other horses will sound the alarm if a predator gets too close.
One day a "country boy" who had been drinking too much to have been driving down the road stopped his car at my house and excitedly told me that my horse was down in the pasture. He seemed miffed when I didn't run in to dial 911. I looked, just to be sure. but she was just taking a snooze. So maybe it's worth saying a little about the subject. P0M 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy

Can anyone clear up whether there is any truth in the belief that the true Arab has one less vertebrae in it's neck? -- Nick Wallis 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the neck that has fewer vertebrae:
"Some Arabians have fewer thoracic and/or lumbar vertebrae [and some have] five lumbar vertebrae instead of six." -- UC Davis Book of Horses, p. 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs)

Hva i er dette? kan jeg endre på denne siden? :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.6.158 (talk)

I've done some research and according to Elwyn Hartley Edwards Encyclopedia of the Horse horses have 18 ribs, 6 lumbar bones, and 18 tail vertebrae. Arabians have 17 ribs, 5 lumbar bones, and 16 tail vertebrae. -- Nick Wallis 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is entirely based on the individual. Some arabians do lack a vertebrae but it is not the standard as once believed. 71.209.155.152 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

All horses have the same number of cervical veterbrae.

There have been a number of skeletal studies done. Many, but by no means all, Arabians have one less lumbar vertebrae, but interestingly, some other breeds may have this too. There is also the possibility of one less thoracic vertebrae (and hence one less set of ribs) in some horses too, though I can't find the documentation on where I read that. (Probably in something by Dr. Deb Bennett, that's the guru on anatomy and conformation these days)Montanabw 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that horses have fewer tail vertebrae. That's what gave them their distinctive high-tail carriage 202.73.122.227 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, a high-carried tail is not related in any way to number of vertebrae. Tail carriage is simply a structural issue based on how the tail attaches to the hindquarters, (or, to be technical, the way the sacral and coccygeal vertebrae attach) it is totally unrelated to number of any vertebrae--lumbar, Sacrum or coccygeal (tail. Actually, even very typy, short-backed Arabians do not always have fewer vertebrae, skeletal studies at Cal Poly-Pomona have analysed this question extensively. A horse with fewer coccygeal vertebrae just has a slightly more compact dock to their tail, it doesn't dictate how it's attached or how high it's carried. Likewise, if a high tail was "caused" by fewer sacral vertebrae, it actually would mean the horse was too short in the hindquarters and thus would be short-strided and un-athletic...which is not the case. But the myth does persist. Montanabw 16:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's useful to remember that a famous trait in mammals is 7 cervical vertebrae; even giraffes. The gaining or losing of thoracic or lumbar vertibrae happens in humans... when the T12 (last thoracic bone) grows as a lumbar, or if S1 (first sacral) does, it's called Lumbarisation. It can go the other way too. Just an anatomical fuck-up like cervical ribs-- it's often not even genetic, but caused from some disturbance in the womb (or The Force, whatever). I only see it notable for Arabians perhaps to say that the commonness of this trait might have something to say about how closely they were bred or something. It doesn't affect the horse's appearence or health. I'm not a horse person, but I would wager that you couldn't find how many thoracic and lumbar vertebrae there are in a particular horse without x-raying it. (Gaviidae) 82.93.133.130 14:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Problems

The segment at the end of horse behavior describing the lovely adjectives that "flow freely from the mouths of those who have the privilege...etc etc" made me cringe to read it. I understand that you guys love your horses, but this isn't NPOV. This isn't even common sense. I would like to see a scientifically reproducible experiment that proves the "honesty" of horses. If you can't show me that, why is it in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.143.237 (talk)

Please sign your posting.
You are right. That passage needed to be deleted, and much of the rest of the section had to be rewritten. I'll try to make my way back through the whole article soon. It is important that we avoid point of view writing, and also that we avoid assertions that are not properly grounded. P0M 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There are still problems. Some of the instructions about the care and feeding of horses should be moved to a manual at Wikibooks. The section about saddling and mounting, which I had to rewrite, could be merged with tack.--Joe 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Biological information

I'm missing some basic biological information on horses, such as what is the gestatation period of a horse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnolle (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Information

I came to this wikipedia page looking for what I thought would be basic information, and with such length I thought i'd find it but however the answer to the question I have is absent from the article. What is the average lifetime of a horse? Could this be added to the article? It seems rather basic, but is missing. Dwayne Kirkwood 01:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point. The average is between 20 and 30 years, for well-cared for horses. In the wild, 6 to 10 years. The claimed record is 62, but that's from 1760 and may not be solid. --John Nagle 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Move horse sports to Equestrianism?

The Horse article is now over the recommended length. Should the "horse sports" section be moved to Equestrianism? Comments, please. --John Nagle 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oeps, I came from a different angle to this page, and started to move stuff to other pages because of its incredable length. Please udo if undesired. KimvdLinde 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Horse be semi-protected?

This article is being vandalized several times a day. Should it be semi-protected? This would mean that anons and new users would be blocked from editing it. Comments? --John Nagle 07:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

sheesh!! u actually type that much! Ha! But i dont blame you they are beautiful creatures.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.255.110 (talk)

Yes! I know!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.255.110 (talk)

I didn't know it was possible to semi-protect a page. I think it would help since people who are registered are much less likely to make mischief. P0M 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That request was turned down. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --John Nagle 19:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There's just not enough concerted vandalism to semiprotect the article, unfortunately. I've added it to my watchlist, though, and will help revert vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I just added it to mine as well. It doesn't make any sense to me why Horse is so popular for vandals. --Anaraug 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that it's schoolchildren. It's a common enough thing, understandable that it might pop into one's mind as a kid was playing around in their computer lab. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that someone seems to hit it daily now that it's on the cleanup list, I suggest we put in another plea for semi-protection.Montanabw 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Today there were 14 edits: 7 vandalisms and 7 reverts. This sounds like a good idea. Miguel Cervantes 03:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I know, but there are als IP's who do make sensible edits. For now, this level is not sufficient, but if it goes on like this, I will protect it if needed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC
It is a more general problem. Almost any simple single word is subject to the "hee-hee" effect. Try Book or Carrot, other articles on my watchlist. Maybe not to the same degree, but I think the same effect at work, Shenme 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! This page WAS on semi-protected status for a few days, now it's off and sure enough, the vandals are back! Can we get it re-protected again? Montanabw 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

External links to fora

I have been editing the page once to include one link. The site is extremely relevant for horse discussion and a chat source. I hope this certainly wasn't considered vandalism?? The Horse Diseases site is an adsense farm website :( The link keeps being removed for no aparent reason by anonymous people.JasonA 4:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid before inserting forum links. And I had a look at the forum, and I disagree that it is a very important forum. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How is that? The forum is one of the best ones out there certainly not the largest as its still new, however if the forum was read and seen, you would find the content within it is outstanding. Any information in clean organized format is important anywhere on the net at this point. No one mentioned it was the best and be all end all, but I do feel it can have a small spot here in this category, do you disagree? JasonA 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a look at it and I disagree that this one is worth an exception to the rule that we generally do not link to fora from wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you please let me know what you're basing your criteria off of? I respect your decision but would also be interested in what can be changed or updated to reflect the proper requirements if any? JasonA 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid: 12 Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.. Seems clear enough for me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it is very clear thats why i'm confused with your responses. I understood and read the Links to normally avoid earlier. It's not a blog, its not a social networking (Myspace) site and yes it is a forum. It does say "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself or if the website is of a particularly high standard." I guess "this" is the part that confuses me. The website is closely related to the subject and all of the articles and content within are too. So at this point i'm narrowing it down to you just do not like the site or believe it personally isn't of high standards? This site is supported by award winning trainers and AQHA/UQHRA, MHC and many more sites nationally. What exactly is your opinion of high standard? JasonA 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The exception is not for when the subject of the article and the subject of the website are closely related, it applies when the subject of the article is the website itself. As for high standards, it would have to be absolutely exceptional-- wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, and just because it's a popular forum doesn't make it encyclopedic. siafu 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
such as when the article is about, or closely related to, does mean that the article at wikipedia is actually about the forum itself, or sufficiently close to that. That does not mean that a website about horses is close enough, as the article about horses is not about a forum itself. And as for exceptional fora, how do you distinguish between the many many good fora around google search? The way to go is to show that this one is exceptional good, by providing links from good content related websites that make comparisons of fora or something like that and come to the conclusion it is exceptional good. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for giving me a clear answer. I am now aware of what was being looked at a little better. The previous discussions were a bit vague so I appreciate you taking the time to clear it up. In the future, a better more suited article regarding the subject / article will be submitted and hopefully accepted. I do agree because its a popular forum it absolutely has no relevance to make it encyclopedic, however the content within well organized and moderated forums is also very valuable to the very same users searching for it. We're not trying to advertise or spam anything, the site had been there for a few months but recently went away, we were merely wanting to follow the rules which are now clearly pointed out to us. Best Regards JasonA 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As for creating an article about the forum, be sure you make absolutely clear that this forum is exceptional, and warrants a article at wikipedia, because if not, I am pretty sure it will not survive long. For that, read Wikipedia:Notability (web) for guidelines on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response and help. I actually meant I was going to align a few things and write some articles that are related and relevant to what is already in the :Horse page on Wikipedia. We have exceptional articles and can over the course of time draft up a few things that would help visitors of this wiki page :Horse. I notice there are the horse diseases and breeds links, We were thinking of drafting original content and articles to put together on the site for the inclusion into the :Horse article on Wikipedia. It will be relevant and specific to this article itself and not by the website in general. We will not re do what is already here as there is plenty of further information this page could have. As an owner of a few horses it would be good to get these things into the publics eye. Is this okay? and can I submit something periodically to someone before i edit this page and perhaps see it get deleted? A semi-approval process perhaps? Thank you all for your time resolving this matter for us. JasonA 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding new content pages is always good, and the best way to contribute to wikipedia. If you are not sure if those pages are good, start with developing them at for example User:Jason/dev and ask someone (me or anybody with experience) to have a look, and when it is good, we move it to the main space. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Courtney's Talk about horses

This was recently added to the Horse article from "207.200.116.7": Personally I love horses ever since i was a little girl. My mom was also into horses to so i guess it sort of runs in the family. My other two sisters are not into horses as much as i am but, they do not hate horses. I mean who could? I have not riden a horse in over two years. I miss riding them it was so much fun. One of my life goal is to ride bare back on the beach. Well that is all i have time to tell you right now. Bye!! P.S. do not erase this please. Write your own little column in if you want but do not erase mine it is important to me!!!

A note to Courtney: While we can't leave that in the main Horse article, if you create your own account on Wikipedia (which is free) you will get a free user page, and you can put it there. Take care, and I hope you do get to ride on the beach. I have. --John Nagle 06:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Canter not a natural gait?

"The canter is not a natural gait, but a restrained form of a gallop."

The issue with this sentence seems to be whether you consider canter as a separate gait from gallop or not. If you consider them the same, then this sentence makes some sense (although horses do not go flat-out galloping all the time and do 'restrain' their gallop). If, however, you consider canter and gallop to be different gaits, then the canter is definitely a natural gait. Horses do canter naturally. It's a bit of an ambiguous phrase so I think it's better out. Doesn't make much difference to the article. Berry 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing. The canter is a natural 3-beat gait, the gallop is a natural 4-beat gait, and most horses will transition between them with a noticeable change. However, in some types of dressage work, horses are trained and muscled up to smoothly adjust their timing so as to make a smooth transition from the canter to the gallop. This is not easy, but it is possible. That's where the idea that the canter is a restrained gallop comes from. If you ask most cantering horses for a gallop, you'll feel a lurch as the gait changes.
Here's a good article on biomechanics of the canter/gallop transition. Note the comment "These are dressage gaits and do not cover the full range of athletic performance of horses. For instance, gallop might be 17 meters/second." The extended canter in dressage is about 7 m/s, but horses can go much faster. --John Nagle 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There are some things that horses are trained to do as circus performances that are said to not be natural. I have no idea of what those actions might be. But in general anything that one can get a horse to do without, e.g., tying the two front legs together and then tying the two back legs together and making the horse "bunny hop" is really a natural gait. I have an Arabian mare who has a remarkable collected trot. It has nothing to do with anything I've ever taught her, and I haven't bothered to train her to do it on command. It has everything to do with her wanting to run (from the imagined monsters I guess) in the forest when I don't want to get my head knocked off by overhanging branches. Is the action "natural"? It is my mare's natural reaction to a special condition that another part of nature (in this case, me) has produced. She could do the same thing if she were at the back of a herd of horses going through a narrow gap that was making all the horses up front slow down to squeeze through. Being at the back she would have to go slow, but she would want to go fast, so rather than walking she might do this virtually in-place trot. That's not as stupid as it might seem because she is probably better prepared to break into a gallop at the first opportunity. (If you don't believe it, you should try it. From the perspective of the rider, when she is walking she is walking, and if she is walking fast she is actually at a little disadvantage for breaking into a gallop. But when she is doing this collected trot she seems always on the verge of galloping. If I should drop the reins at the walk, she would continue to walk for long enough for me to grab the reins again. If I dropped them when she was doing this trot I might have a run-away on my hands. P0M 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You have an Arabian who has discovered the piaffe on her own. That's fun when it happens. --John Nagle 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't actually "in place" or close enough to count as the piaffe, but I think it could easily be refined. It is fun. It makes me feel like Fritz Stecken. P0M 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Camino pic request

Can someone take a good side shot picture of a camino (the horse, not the car or browser), and then upload it here? Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a shot from the head up as it would be used in an icon. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any "camino" breed on lists of horse breeds. "Camino" means "road." P0M 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't either, but I've heard some horses referred to as "camino" so I was asking if anyone had a pic of one. I'm aware of the Spanish meaning. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have heard somebody confuse "camino" with "palamino". P0M 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also have confused it with Cremello, a white color.

Article still too long

I've just spent a couple of hours doing what I can to tighten up the writing and add sections and subsections where I felt they were needed (basic biology, economics). I hope others can add to them, so essential info is covered. I think a lot of the current article is not essential, and could be usefully hived off to form other articles, with pointers to them from this main one. I am thinking of all the colours, and the breeds. For some reason, I am BOLDER to add what I see as lacking (particularly in structure), but am reluctant to remove much. Can anyone better acquainted than I with the history of this article BE BOLD and cut out some of the waffle? Thanks. BrainyBabe 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

wow, 20 cm is tiny -- can you put a common object next to the scale?

  • isn't 20 cm like a foot? Could you vertically put like a foot-long hotdog showing the height of that 20 cm little critter? Mmmmm, hot-dog. (Or, per the cosumption question at the top of this talk page: mmmm, horse-dog). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.189.233 (talk)
  • 20 cm = 7.874 inches. Anthony Appleyard 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a Gatorade bottle, as that is slightly more standardized than a hot dog. Thoughts? Miguel Cervantes 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports section

It seems that we are duplicating a whole sports section, and that this page is getting way to long. There is a page about Equestrianism, so could we please leave it there? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionist Claims

I gave this article a minor edit several weeks ago, placing according to most evolutionist scientists at the beginning of the evolutionist claims. Someone deleted it since then, and I would like to know their reasons. The "facts" they give are not proven, and many evolutionist scientists do disagree with much of the material. I'm not saying we should delete the section, or even put in a Creationist viewpoint. But I do know that it is not right to delete a fact. Even if it were true (which I don't believe it is, but that doesn't matter), the claim that most evolutionists believe it to be so is still the truth. It is not an unnecessary addition, as without it, it claims that that is the solid truth. I would think that anyone who deleted that statement would be vandalizing. --72.66.5.235 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide the sources that show that many evolutionist scientists do disagree with much of the material. That would be very helpfull. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll do that, and be right back. Still, even if my source is incorrect, the sentance is true. Many if not most people disbelieve the statement. Someone said that creationist views do not belong here. I'm not disputing that, even if I disagree. What I am saying is that it is wrong to state it as fact. If you believe everything the scientists tell you throughout the years, the "facts" change as new information or theories come in to replace the old "facts". But I am not going to get into that. The point is that giving only one viewpoint, even if it is that of the majority of scientists, is against a neutral viewpoint. Even were the "facts" proven my statement would still be true because not everyone agrees with it. I'll try and find that reference, and give it here. May take a while, though. . . --72.66.5.235 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You seriously misrepresent the WP:NPOV policy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read the page, and I still don't see that my arguement to put in a true statement that makes the article NPOV is not the right thing to do. To quote one section of that (and you can quote other parts if you find anything against what I am saying):

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

Unless someone can actually give me something against this I do not see how it is vandalism or even POV to place that sentence in. --72.66.5.235 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From Evolutionism: The term evolutionist is still used more widely and can refer to proponents of the theory of evolution through natural selection which has superseded the earlier biological theories, but particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a science, and so this usage is often avoided by the scientific community.. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a scientific article, not a religious one. Denial of the theory of evolution as broadly understood by the scientific community is a religious belief. So, use of the word "evolution" itself in a very limited way tells those who care all they need to know as far as the "theory or fact" debate. However, you don't have to keep constantly using qualifying language over and over. There's no need to violate the rules of good editing and style to keep beating the issue to death. Kim has it correct, there is a consensus here. You might also want to creat a login name so that what you suggest has a little more validity, too. Montanabw 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about registering a while back, but back then I was correcting spelling mistakes and undoing vandalism. I might as well pretty soon. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this article is presenting the evolutionist view as a fact. I understand that this is not a religious article. I personally believe that science is more in favor of Creationism than Evolutionism. We don't need to list all the other views because, of course, if Evolutionism isn't true than the only other option is a creator. But this is making such statements as "All equids are part of the family Equidae, which dates back approximately 54 million years to the Eocene period. At one time there were twelve families of odd-toed ungulates, though today only three survive; tapirs and rhinoceroses are the closest living relatives of the modern horse". I don't mean to "beat the issue to death", if I understand you correctly. Still, I would say that it needs a rewrite or something like it to change it more to say "this is the view of most evolutionist scientists". By the way, I couldn't find my sources so I won't be able to back up that some evolutionist scientists differ in opinion. I did find, however in the article on Eohippus that some scientists disagree with the view that the horse evolved from it. --72.66.25.86 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

This article is so long and disorganized that it is really quite unwieldy. I noticed that several spots have a link to a "main article" on a given subtopic, which is great, and maybe we should think about trying to move more material into existing or new articles with appropriate links. Sometimes the material under a heading is a repeat of something in another article, though not always properly linked.

Thoughts? If we remove anything major here, we should incorporate it into a new or existing page and show respect for the work others have put into this piece.

While we're at it, is there any way to archive older parts of this discussion? THIS page is pretty unwieldy too!Montanabw 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 18:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree,and it is already some time at my list of todo pages. Feel free to clean it up. The whole section on horse in sport can go to equistraism or something called like that. That would already clean up a large section. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I archived the talk page. Miguel Cervantes 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I cut most of the equestrianism stuff off. Miguel Cervantes 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else want to jump in, here's a page on how to do it: Wikipedia:Summary style—Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

I am of the belief that 'Words relating to horses' would be better suited to Wiktionary. Comments? --Stretch 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the equestrianism stuff cut and re-incorporated elsewhere or just cut?? Montanabw
I've moved the first section of words to Wiktionary and deleted them. I'll try and do some more later on --Stretch 01:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Gallery

Should the image gallery be a part of this article? I looked around a bit, and dog, cat, and cattle don't have one. Is there a reason why horse does? Miguel Cervantes 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No reasons either way. What I would keep in mind is the heaviness of the article, and more images makes the article heavier. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Or maybe an images archive in Wikipedia commons. (Is there some way to access all the horse photos via a search in Wikipedia the way there is in the commons?) The horse articles generally seem to have a real problem with folks who seem to feel that their "me and my pony" photos belong in an encyclopedia. Whine... Montanabw 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section to help get this article cleaned up. Miguel Cervantes 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can add a few of the images at several places in the article, as it is quite empty now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This goes round and round. Early on, there was a complaint on the talk page that there weren't enough pictures. Then, over time, people added various pictures to the article. Then there were complaints that the pictures weren't all well matched to the text. So someone moved all the pictures to an image gallery at the end. Then someone else removed the picture gallery. Now we're back to where we started; we have a complaint that there aren't enough pictures. There's too much "bold editing" going on. --John Nagle 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good edits with descriptive summaries were definitely needed and the editing is not too bold if people paste the relevant material into the discussion page here or at the page the info should be moved into. (One example being the war horse section. Info was removed from here, "parked" in the discussion there, and then incorporated into the main article) Any article is useless if it's too unweildy to navigate. It also is useless if excess images mean it takes so long to load over a dialup connection that people just give it up. I agree with whomever decided to remove the image gallery in its entirety. The need now is MAYBE for a few appropriate, illustrative images in the areas that aren't being covered in a separate article. I presume all the pictures still are uploaded somewhere in Wikipedia for later use--though I am not good at finding them except those few uploaded in the Commons. Tips? Montanabw 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Pictures are particularly difficult to find. On the Commons they may be titled in any language, so it can be difficult to find them. I've organized some of the spider images into a special page there, but there are probably still lots of images that I've missed. There is no encouragement for people uploading photos to assign them to a category, either.
I did the same thing for spiders on the English Wikipedia. Actually I did that one first. Maybe we need to make such pages for horse images. P0M 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being bold

I have been bold this evening, and moved considerable pieces of the text towards either seperate articles or to existing articles. The page is now getting towards a more reasonable size (35 kb). I realise that some sections need to be brushed up, and expanded slightly. If this was to bold, feel free to undo my work. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wiki has the 32 KB recommended limit for a reason and it is fine what you have done, especially because you didn't destroy anything, you just shifted it and told us where it went. I added in the war horse stuff you moved into the article that was already there, with some tweaks and edits.
I've noticed that many of the horse-related pages are not really all that great and there's room for improvement. But there are also TONS of them...some days, I think there's probably more in here on horses than on world history!
I agree- there is a TON on horses... but why not? Horses ROCK!!!

Horses for Leisure

On the topic of NPOV, the sentence in "Horses for Leisure:" "Some countries are more adept than others at producing quality horses and using them for leisure and sport, for example Britain, Germany, Australia, Denmark and Spain." This basically seems to say that only Western European countries and Australia can produce quality horses, which of course ignores the fact that most of the "quality" horses listed have varying degrees of Arabian blood. Can this be reworded somehow? I don't want to go in and just start hacking at someone else's work, but this does need to be more neutral. --Raulpascal 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that has been bugging me too. I'll go in and start hacking. Though, to be fair, the warmbloods bred in Germany DO seem to kick the you-know-what off of everyone else on the planet in Grand Prix Dressage...but for an encyclopedia article we don't need to get into it. Check the article in a day or so and see if my edits improve anything. Montanabw 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks. I'm still new enough that I'm nervous about editing things, but that line bothered me. Probably an entry from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. I agree about German warmbloods being the best in Grand Prix Dressage, though I've always been a fan of the shaggy, ugly steppe ponies and the like. --65.31.208.175 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile to look at the question of "quality horses" from a historical standpoint. The horses of China, for instance, were typically small, really what we might regard as ponies, but there were also larger horses imported from Ferghanah, Bactria. The Chinese market was very hot for these horses. As a result of the "horse drain," export of these horses was forbidden for a time. Then China went to war and in 102 A.D. China won and took away 100+ of their best horses for breeding and 3000 ordinary horses. The Horse in Art, p. 32. Bactria (northern Afghanistan today) is not that far from Arabia, so one wonders what the genetic conribution of the early Arabians may have been to the genetics of the horses exported to China. P0M 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not have an editing war about Lipizzans, here, OK?

Reverted edit claiming Lipizzaners are "known worldwide" as being from Slovenia. They aren't "known worldwide" for this, though they do exist there. They were developed with the support of the Hapsburg Kings, and though the Austrio-Hungarian Empire is long gone, and town of Lipica or Lippiza may now be in Slovenia, a) it wasn't when the breed was founded, b) it wasn't the first stud--Maximillian's stud at Kladrub (now in the Czech Republic) was earlier, c) the breed itself came from multiple sources, but particularly Spain, and d) the most famous Lipizzaner stud, Piber, is still in Austria, not far from Graz. So, though it is probably appropriate to give credit for the fact that the once-famous Lippiza stud is now in Slovenia, perhaps in the Lipizzan article, let's not argue about it here. There just isn't a Spainish Riding School of Slovenia. This paragraph is about who is famous for what. (I mean, we also don't want to start an editing war between, say, the Dutch Warmblood people and the German Warmblood people over who has the best Dressage horses, either. This is about fame and geography, not a laundry list of everything...

Two new users categoires

There is a new user category: Wikipedians who love horses with one subcategory (Barefoot horse owners), this one with a new template Template:User barefoot horse for barefooters. Take a look, add the template to yourself, add new subcategories and new templates... --Alex brollo 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism

This article seems to be getting extensive vandalism. On average of a new vandalism every 2 days. Sometimes more frequently. No doubt due to the fact 'horse' is quite an arbitrarily accessible article. I notice most if not all of the vandalism thats occuring is being done by unregistered users. Would anyone else support changing this page to registered users edit only? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, please!!! In fact, we have been begging admins to do this for months. It was briefly semi-protected, but then someone took it off. I don't know why a simple protection cannot be placed here. Yes, yes, yes!!! Montanabw 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we start a campaign to get this page permanently into semi-protection status? I have gone to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection a couple of times and have been turned down. It was once semi-protected for a week in December, and then it was removed. TPTB of wikipedia don't seem to "get" that most of our vandalism is new IPs who think it's fun to comment on horse anatomy and removing protection after a week is useless! ARRGGHH! If everyone who reverts vandalism would put in a request for protection, maybe we'd get an admin to take up our cause. Anyone want to help? Montanabw 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

horses stance.

could anyone tell me the difference between the way a horse stands and the way a cow stands.my daughter has had this question for homework and i have not got a clue 82.39.179.23 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)paul

After I get over homework questions that are asked in such an irritating fashion (what does "stand" mean, anyway??), the biggest obvious difference is that horses have one-toed hooves and cows are "cloven hooved," meaning that they have two-toed hooves. Hope that was what they were after. Montanabw 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Normal people wouldn't be ignored about that, but on to the question. Horses stand with their legs unlocked and ready for easy movement. They occasionaly lock them when slepping or when kneeling down. Cows practicaly always have their legs locked. The even lock them after each step. That is why horses can gallop and sprint, and cows never really acheive much more than a lopsided canter. (that and they don't weigh as much.)Solon Olrek 23:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pardon to butt in, but may I ask what kind of vandalism this article has been receiving? I have not seen it vandalized and yet it's protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uzaiyaro (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

horses

Horses are the nicest animals. Has anybody heard of Criollo horses? Those are my favourite kind, and i would love to have more information about them ex. what their main colors are, what they do best etc. thnx! Jackie Kusch 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Jackie KuschJackie Kusch 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English vs. Western

I added some information to the English vs. Western section. I tried to make it sufficiently clear and concise, which isn't easy for me when discussing horses. A lot of the information is based on my personal experiences as someone who has ridden in both styles in the United States, and as such, I lack references. I also wasn't sure what other styles may be prevalent outside of the US. Equiraptor 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that someone has reverted this addition, and I agree with that decision since (1) the article is on horses not on what humans do to them, and (2) the article is too long already.
I disagree, also, with many of the assertions contained in the (now-reverted) material. It is important to concentrate on main points (e.g., the main difference between English and Western saddles are the kinds of activities they are designed for and the resulting major increase in weight of a real working western saddle over an English saddle) and to provide citations for assertions made in the article. P0M 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I think a discussion of English vs. Western riding styles would belong in a horseback riding article, not in a "horse" article. Perhaps a brief mention that there are multiple riding styles with a reference to the Equestrianism article would be more fitting. That article does contain discussion of English and Western styles, and we shouldn't really need to replicate the work here. Equiraptor 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki links are needed. We have TONS of riding articles, including the following articles: equestrianism, western riding, english riding, hunt seat, saddle seat, dressage, show jumping, show hunter, [saddle]], western saddle, english saddle, etc., etc., etc., I could go on. The horse article got terribly bloated and a lot of material was moved to these other categories. May I suggest that appropriate use of the

Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]
template be used? Montanabw 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Montanabw. I made another major change to that section, even changing the title to Riding Methods. I'd appreciate further suggestions on how to keep the main points of the original section while retaining the small size. I couldn't find a wording for expressing the tack differences I'd like, but I'm not sure that's even necessary.Equiraptor 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a bit, hopefully this settles the issue without having to get into the ancient styles and schools. Montanabw 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion Over Wild Species

The section on wild species states both that there are multiple species of truly wild horses, and only one species. Can someone clear up the confusion on that one? 24.14.10.54 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Used to be multiple, now only one. Will take a look at it and see what can be done. Montanabw 03:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Silver Dapple DNA test

Hi There,

I have a colt that I had tested when he was 6 months old last year for the black gene because his sire was homozygous for black his dam flaxen sorrel. My colt has a dark grayish-chocolate body with a bright white silver mane and tail. Genetically he is a black horse and geneticises at UC Davis last year emailed me that he has the silver gene to dilute his color to make him look the way he does. A couple of weeks ago UC Davis came out with a test for the Z gene. I had him tested and he is negitive for the Z gene. So what is causing the color change on my colt? His body is dark and his mane and tail is bright silver white. When he was born is mane was black and tail was half black with a silvery tip. What color do I have? He does not fit the Champagne color discription either. He would have been the first silver dapple in his breed. Now I'm not sure what he is and will be standing him for stud in 2008. I need somekind of answer on his color. Please help:)


Thanks Valerie

Sure does sound like silver dilution, though many black foals are born kind of a weird mousy color like you describe him when he was born. But they shed out black. Upload a photo here and tell us what breed he is. Also, maybe something got screwed up, the sample was bad or something got mixed up at the lab. Send them a photo too and ask if they would test a second sample for free. http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/service/horse/coatcolor.html Montanabw 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I spoke with the lab at UC Davis. They used a sample from him last year. Do you think it should be redone with a fresh sample? They have current photos of him. They admit he looks like a silver dilute but can not explain why his color is the way it is considering the test results. My theory is that there is more than one silver gene out there and the new test only is good for one. My colt is a APHA and Pinto registered overo paint. He is extremely beautiful and stricking with this color. Poeple think his is an extreme chocolate palomino. except his has the very dark legs with silver above the hooves. I spoke to someone else that has silver dapples one of hers came back negative also. She said the test is new and they have to figure out the inconsistencies. So I guess I won't worry about it for now.

Thanks Valerie

If a new sample comes back negative, then you may be right. I have heard that sabino coloring is possibly a gene-complex or linked to more than one gene. For example, the one gene test they have, SB1, is for a gene that has never been found in Arabians or Clydesdales, yet they too have sabino coloring at times.

I tried to find an email to upload photos to you. What is an email I can send you photos of my yearling colt?

Thanks Valerie

I don't use email on Wikipedia, but if you want to upload it on wikipedia as an image that will be deleted in a week (i.e. with no copyright info at all) and give me a heads up on my talk page, I can look at it there and then it will be automatically deleted not long after. Montanabw 06:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Any other info thts missing

Can I just say there is so much information that you have missed out on. What about all the different breeds? I mean did you know that the Shetland pony for one isn't a pony? Although it's height is of a pony, it's general structure is of a horse. Also it is not the smallest breed. That is the fallabella. Fallabella can be anything from 8/9 inches to about a meter in height. There are special shows that are held for them to be run in-hand. Do you know the exact height limitations of a pony to a horse? A pony is anything up to 14.2 hh(hands high). Whereas a horse is anything from 14.2hh plus. Do you know any breeds aswell? I had a few horses myself since I was 2 years old. I've Welsh Cobs(Section A and D), a fallabella, a thoroughbred and a Shetland.

My competiton horse was a 14.2hh Weslsh Cob Mare (Section D) called Katie. Her show name was Black Velvet. She was an extremely good hunting horse and always did well in the ridden working hunters. But she was best at show jumping and cross-country. Not to metion in-hand but she never did like to be controlled!

There are dozens of articles on horses, use the wikilinks. There is an article on Falabella horses, there are articles on almost every breed in the world. See List of horse breeds. This article on horses does have a section differentiating horses from ponies, at least it did if someone didn't vandalize it. Please sign your posts. Montanabw 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Horses are also known to be able to jump in the air and twist around 180 degrees

cost

Hi, Does anyone know how much it costs to take care of a horse for a year?--Fonkety ponk 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In what country and whereabouts? What kind of horse? Take care of how well? Are you thinking about livery, or running costs for an owner with their own land? Notinasnaid 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have sometimes suggested that the cost of keeping a horse, combining board, feed, vet, horseshoer, etc., is roughly comparable to the cost of a decent one-bedroom apartment in your area. Other times I have suggested that parents wondering if they should buy a horse for their child will spend about as much money as they would if they had another child!<grin> A third, facitious, suggestion is that if you want to make a small fortune in horses, start out with a LARGE fortune!Montanabw 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had horses in very different places and sometimes the cost is around £70 a month but can rise up to as much as £400. (remember stabling costs as well as veterinarian, equipment, blacksmith etc!!! That can cost more than you think!) For example having a horse in the UK is usually so expensive that it's an upper class thing, but in sweden it can be very affordable indeed if you have it in your own stable.

Wild horses

Under the topic "wild horses" it says that there is only one species of wild horse left today. This is NOT true. There are Camargue ponies as well as Soraya and Brumby!!!! (the brumby is nearly extinct but still there.) Also something should be written about the dozens of half-wild horses, like iceland ponies, shetland ponies and dartmoor ponies, which are completely wild in summer but get shelter in winter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.0.18 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorraias, Brumbies, Mustanges, Camargue Ponies, Chincoteague Ponies, et. al, are NOT true "wild" horses. They are feral horses, descended from domesticated horses that escaped to the wild. The only true wild horses that lived into modern times were the Tarpan and Przewalski's horse. The true Tarpan is now extinct, so the Przewalski is the only truly wild horse--one that has never been successfully domesticated-- left. Read the whole article and follow the wiki links for more information. Montanabw 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

horse age

so I was in a debate with so folks about the differents in age of a horse amd a human. my question is are they the same age as humans. like dog years are there horse yours compared to people

(the horse man)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.138 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Kind of. One formula says a "horse year" compared to a people year is 3-1/2 to 1 (similarly, "dog years" are 7 to 1). However, both "dog years" and "horse years" have other formulas, that I don't have time to look up here, that sort of "front load" the aging process to reflect that physical maturity happens quicker--i.e. a one year old dog is considered full-grown, not the equivalent of a 7 year old child in physical maturity, similarly, a yearling horse is at about the physical maturity equivalent of a 12 year old child, not a 3-1/2 year old...hope that makes sense. Once you are dealing with middle-aged animals, the formula starts to look more accurate: a 20 year old horse is pretty comparable to a 70 year old person--some more healthy and spry that others, depending on lifestyle and genetics...Hope this helps. Montanabw 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Differs between races, etc. f.ex iceland ponies can beome as much as 30 years old, while a lot of horses get sent to the slaughterhouse at 16. Most horses I know have become around 20-24. Oldest horse I think I ever heard of was 40. (bear in mind this is very, very rare.) Had a horse once who acted like a 4-year-old when she was 16 and another who started getting grey in her mane at 12. it all has to do with race and the individual horse itself.

I think the Guiness book of world records is a horse age 51. (don't we have that in the main article somewhere?) Breed of horse (not "race", that's incorrect terminology) is a factor, as is the way the horse is cared for throughout its life. And, sad to say, the whim of the owner...Modern horses cared for with decent nutrition are generally ridable into their early to mid 20's if they have been properly cared for and do not suffer serious injuries. Ponies and small horses like Arabians or Morgans often live longer. Mules live a long time, also. These days, many horses can live to be 30 if they are taken care of. Draft horses and horses who are worked very hard or are poorly cared for will not live as long, often "used up" by age 15 or 16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Error on height

There is an error in the Specialized Vocabulary section, at the end where it discusses height.

Currently, it says:

By convention, 15.2 hh means 15 hands, 1.57 m in height.

It should say:

By convention, 15.2 hh means 15 hands and 2 inches (Imperial), or 1.57 m in height.

I plan to correct this in a few days when I am no longer considered a "newly registered user".

T-bonham 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I can go fix it if someone else hasn't already. Notice you have made some small edits in other articles too... it is much appreciated when newcomers edit with care instead of diving in a little too wildly! Montanabw 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)