Talk:Arabian horse/Archive 2

"Purity" issue--handle with care, please?
One area that is sure to generate editing wars is to go too far down the "purity" road when discussing Arabian breeding. There is a lot of myth, romanticism, legend, argument and emotion that crops up about this issue.

So, for the sake of Wikipedia, let's just not go too far down that road. How "pure" of blood the Arabian really is happens to be a very hot, controversial topic in some circles within the Arabian breed itself.

Emotions run high: By the strictest standard, some people argue that only something like 2 or 3 percent of modern Arabians meet the technical definition of "Asil" as propounded by the Bedouin. On the other hand, many major Arabian registries in the USA and abroad argue with equal vehemence that EVERY SINGLE registered Arabian can be traced to "pure" blood from the desert.

There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides.

What I think can come to as close to a neutral consensus view on this is as follows: a)  There probably was an "Oriental" prototype that evolved in the middle east, adapted to a hot, dry climate, and existed prior to human domestication.  b)  The Arabian as a breed developed in relative genetic isolation, with "survival of the fittest" management, and from at least the 14th century we have strong evidence that purity of pedigree was protected with religious fervor by many of the Bedouin c)  Therefore, in scientific terms, the genetic prepotency of the breed is extremely strong. d) Because the genetic prepotency of the breed is so strong, even if there might be some non-asil blood in modern pedigrees, the hereditary influence is scientifically and statistically insignificant. And d) getting into arguments over whose lines are "pure" and "unpure" is a quick way to make a lot of people very angry.

So if we must discuss "purity," let's take it out of the realm of myth, hash it out here, and not edit the article unless a consensus arises. The last thing that needs to occur here is a flame war between Egyptian, Polish and Crabbet breeders. Please!

The World Arabian Horse Association (WAHO) has a good discussion of this issue for those who want to delve deeply into it. The organizations who are the most concerned with the "purity" of bloodlines include Al-Khamsa and the Pyramid Society. The more "inclusive" positions are discussed by the Arabian Horse Association, and with a slightly different tack, WAHO. All have web sites. Decide for yourself. Montanabw 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Khamsa
...does not apply to all Arabians; just a small, relatively rare subtype. Mythology is not as important as history so should stay lower on the page. DrL 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See below. The "Al-Khamsa" myth isn't even the same as "Al-Khamsa" designation in modern pedigrees, as I understand it.  I see you created a red link on the words "Al-Khamsa," I think doing up an article on the topic is a VERY good idea, especially as this main article is already huge.Montanabw 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a blue link. It was when I started the article on Al Khamsa that I noticed the inaccuracies here. I have several sources that I plan on adding to that article later today when I have a moment :) DrL 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see you fixed the blue link. But let's keep the creation myths BEFORE the history section, they are just for fun, anyway.


 * Proposed compromise--we keep mythology up on the page, but use most of your wording, in particular the phrase "Bedouin" bloodlines? Montanabw 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thing it's labeled "mythology" because that's what it is! DrL 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PRECISELY!! It's a section about myths and legends, not intended to be part of the history section! Yes! Exactly! That's the point! You got it!! BTW, I am adding a link to Al-Khamsa at the end with the other external links. Montanabw 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the link you supplied only confirms the point that "Al Khamsa" is a designation of a subset of Arabian horses, not the entire breed. In that way your edit is misleading. I will give you time to research it and correct your edit and will look to do the same. DrL 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, check the last edit I made...note that I reincorporated your "Bedouin" language. If you want a further correction, post your thoughts here and we can tweak the details. But this IS the mythology section, not the history section. Please, understand that the term "Al-Khamsa" isn't being used here to talk about relative purity of bloodlines (see section below), I mean we also include the story about Ishmael's horse that fell from the sky in a whirlwind!

And frankly, I really, really, REALLY DO not want to get the "Al-Khamsa" fight started, because the next thing you know the "Blue List" people will be weighing in and saying that only THEY know which horses are really "Pure," then the Pyramid Society will have to weigh in saying that only THEY know which horses are "pure, at which point the CMK people will come in yelling that Skowronek "was too" a purebred, and in all honesty, Wikipedia is NOT the place! Montanabw 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See the expanded "Controversies" section. I hope I properly explained the position of Al Khamsa there and we can stop mucking around with the mythology section (see "Myth" discussion below).  We have to keep these short, and luckily you now have a page where you can expand on the definition if need be. But if the paragraph states Al-Khamsa's position incorrectly, go ahead and fix--but PLEASE keep it short--no longer than the others, anyway!  I made sure to put in a link to your Al Khamsa article too.Montanabw 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khamsa, Straight Egyptian, and "purity." Let's not fight!
In light of recent edits to the mythology section, shall we have a brief conversation about the issue of "Al-Khamsa" and other purity issues?

Let's especially not get into an editing war!

There is a longstanding and often fierce internal controversy between Arabian breeders over the relative "purity" of various bloodlines and whose horses are more "pure" than others. Please, let's just NOT go there in Wikipedia! If someone wants to put in some links to pages that discuss various viewpoints, we can add a FEW lines to the "controversies" section, plug in footnotes, and then let people go offsite to read about the points of view of various factions. But let's not have the Crabbet-versus-Polish-versus-Egyptian fight start here. And PLEASE OH PLEASE let's just NOT even start on the spat between "Pyramid Society," "Blue List" and "Al-Khamsa." If you want to add some links at the end, go for it, (though within Wiki policy of no personal promotion, etc...) but this article is already almost too long as it is. Montanabw 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (< humbly begging...)


 * Don't change history, even mythological history, just provide a source that applies it to all Arabians not just the Bedouin lines. No one is fighting - I'm just interested in accuracy :) DrL 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it now just says "Arabian" bloodlines...I didn't put in the "Bedouin" part--was that you or someone else? But anywa,if we want to be technical about it, the Arabian Horse Association vehemently states that ALL Arabians come from pure desert Bedouin bloodlines...which I why I don't even want to go there. Am I correct that the Al-Khamsa people don't REALLY believe that Muhammad actually honored five mares?  If so, then the story is a myth. (And yes, I read the WAHO article on "purity," and yes, I know that by some standards only something like 2% of all Arabians are considered "pure" by some standards...but oh gosh that spat gives me a headache.)

Myth versus fact
I have temporarily removed the following sentence from the mythology section in order for there to be further discussion here.

"Pure descendents of these bloodlines are referred to as Al Khamsa.

It does not appear that anyone really believes these five horses actually existed. They are a creation myth or story. Of course, the same could be said for many human creation myths too, up to and including Adam and Eve.

Therefore, regardless of the status of Al-Khamsa horses today, the tale is a myth and we probably shouldn't be saying ANY horses descended from these fictional horses any more than that they descended from Ishmael's mythical steed Kuhaylah.

Further discussion invited. Montanabw 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The myth is likely limited to the tale of Mohammed and the mares rushing to the water. That there were "choice strains" (the five plus a couple of others) that groups have strived to preserve is easily verifiable from breeding records. It's my understanding that the myth of Al Khamsa refers only to these strains. This is consistently reported in all sources. To generalize it to all Arabians changes a specific meaning of Al Khamsa. This is actually not accurate. I see that you want to use it as a "just so" story for the whole breed, but I would suggest a third opinion. DrL 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Until we get that third opinion, I am willing to live with your current version because of your correct statement that "Al Khamsa" has become a "term of art" and has a specific meaning beyond the literal translation of the term (though a couple spots are a little wordy, I may make MINOR edits). The wording makes no real difference to those who are just looking for basic info on Arabian horses and as it appearently matters a great deal to Al Khamsa. And yes, I think the whole tale is in fact a "just so" story. However, as a person who has Crabbet and Polish-bred Arabians, I personally think that is it a little offensive to claim that only Al Khamsa Arabians are "real" Arabians, but this is specifically the kind of no-win battle I was hoping to avoid. I mean, even the "Blue Star" people claim some Al Khamsa horses aren't "pure" enough for them...where does it end?Montanabw 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you can live with that. You've done a lot of good work on the article :) but it's a good exercise not to sit on an article quite so tightly. No one is claiming that there are certain "real" Arabians and others are "fake" Arabians (at least nobody here). Obviously, all are Arabians. IMO, the best ones are well-bred blends. Don't forget to sign your posts. DrL 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I always forget to sign the posts, thanks for the reminder. OTOH, it is unbelievably annoying to have my type of "pure" desert horses called a "blend." I mean, according to the Blue Star people, even Al Khamsa horses aren't really "pure." Seriously, I'd really like to see the actual criteria by which some of these organizations decide what "pure" is. According to Davenport (see _My Quest for the Arabian Horse_), you had to word your request to the Bedouin VERY carefully before their oath the horse was Asil actually was the truth--and with the wrong request they considered it perfectly acceptable to lie... But as for "sitting" on the article, check out the bullfighting thread. Or the pornographic vandalism. Or the "I love my pony/here's her picture" edits. Sigh...someone's gotta be the cop...for now, it's me.. . :-) Montanabw 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blend = blend of bloodlines. Of course, they are pure Arabians. Didn't mean to offend. There are distinct bloodlines in every breed of every animal. Personally, I think Polish and Crabbet are the best lines. Thanks for your policing! DrL 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
There is a lot of unsourced POV in the article. For instance, this sounds very POV and needs to be reworded, sourced or removed: "A pervasive misconception is that the refinement of Arabians means they have weak or light bone." There are other examples and I hope we can edit them to bring them more in line with policy or remove them. --DrL 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tweaked the places you tagged and tried to reword or clarify and source when possible. Agreed with one bit you removed.  We certainly could try some rewording elsewhere if needed.  We now have what, 30 footnotes in the article?  We can sure source some more! But let's first see if we agree upon where the POV problems are and if the problem is actually NPOV or just phrasing that needs work.  Putting in the citation needed plugs, with useful summaries, is a good way to flag the areas of concern without resorting to wholesale edits.


 * I do suggest we discuss and tweak the potential changes here before making major edits. A collaborative effort would probably be the best way to manage this.   Having owned Arabians for 30 years as well as having professional experience with other breeds, I think I have some perspective on these issues.   What is your background with Arabians?  Just curious (put it on my talk page if you'd rather not take up space here)


 * Before we edit anything extensively, though, please do review the history of this article so we can have respect for the work of others and issues that appear to have been settled. In particular, read the "too positive" stuff in the Talk Archive.  I'm open to suggestions on improving NPOV, and at one level would like to eliminate the "controversies" section altogether, but in light of the previous incarnations of the article, I think it is best--for now, anyway--to just keep in the preemptive strikes.   Read the archived stuff and see what you think.  I swear that I spent most of my early time on this article dealing with tons of NPOV critiques--both ways!


 * When I started reworking this piece, what was it, yikes, last March(!), there was a tremendous amount of negative POV material about Arabians in it. Prior to that, the previous incarnation had too much "all Arabians are wonderful dream horses" and other excessively positive POV nonsense.  I agree that working toward fairness and neutrality is a good idea.


 * But please, given the Al Khamsa discussion above, let's not go on about who is on a Soapbox, eh?  And, ahem, assume goodwill?


 * What I attempted to do by creating the "controversies" section is take a lot of that old material and address it in general terms in one spot that didn't take up too much space.  I really think that discussing urban legends in detail is not a conversation that belongs in a main encyclopedia article, but given that a lot of people get all hot about things like this, a general statement seemed useful.
 * Sincere question--on the "light boned" piece, I threw in a cite to a problem comment in Wiki itself (want a project? Try the Horse conformation article!) I could cite to all the message boards and other sites where some idiot says Arabians are weak and have light bone, are hot-blooded and unmanagable, are stupid, dingy, or whatever.  But must we?  These ARE some of the pervasive misconceptions out there.  I could do a google search and find you 10 examples in the first set of hits (Or, just check out a current flame war going on at the Chronicle of the Horse chat forum about half- arabs.  Or, ever hang out in a hunter-jumper barn, or, for worse yet--a rodeo ropers' barn?)Montanabw 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You improved the article a lot. I do want to mention that I am striving for accuracy, not playing favorites. There is nothing in the Al Khamsa discussion above that indicates I am on a soapbox. I don't own any Al Khamsas and I wouldn't trade any of my Arabians for any (well, maybe one).
 * Regarding my recent comments and edits, I just thought the article was coming off a bit too defensive (still could use a little more improvement). I actually own several kinds of horses and ponies and find the Arabians very similar in tractability to the other breeds. My one "problem" was a rescue that had been abused so I am not going to blame her for that and she is coming around. My point is that we would do the breed a service to steer away from the apologetic tone. Arabians have nothing to be sorry for. Unless a criticism is objectively verified (other than, say, an editor's personal experience) it shouldn't be in the article. Message boards are unimportant and not considered WP:RS. When I was asking for citations, it was mainly with regards to the criticisms. In order to keep the criticisms in, there should be some reliable sources. You did a good job clarifying the pony part, btw. --DrL 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone is carried over from dealing with the earlier incarnations of the article. I think it fair to look at ways to phrase things in a less "apologetic" manner, but to remove the controversies section entirely may start up another round of Arab-bashing that appears, for the moment, to have died down. There was a lot of flak for being "too positive" about Arabians, too favorable, etc...and this is a problem in several of the breed pieces--either they are written as a PR bit by the rah-rah team (I tweaked the Friesian article to remove a lot of flowery language), or they contain serious slams. (I did a partial rewrite on the Quarter horse article, it has a lot of problems).

Anyway, the tweaks and rephrasing is usually improving things bit by bit. There is still a ways to go before the perfect featured article is reached.Montanabw 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Iberian Horses vs Arabian horses: Can we not fight, please? Discuss here, instead
The Arabian horse article has been vandalized repeatedly in recent days, mostly by an unregistgered user who is upset about material in the article attributing Arabian ancestry to the Andalusian horse. Then, when this language is in there, many Arabian defenders jump in and add less-than-helpful pro-Arabian comments. Both violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy and it all needs to slow down and be debated HERE, not in the article itself. It has now been reverted twice. I have softened some mention of the Andalusian, added some citations to the article, and added yet another bit to the eternal "controversies" section to attempt to quiet this dispute.

May I ask that pro-Arabian folks not make inflammatory statements or even emotional "I love Arabians" statements. Please remember NPOV. Revert vandalism and be fair.

As for the Iberian horse fans, please do not run down Arabians. Arabian people are not vandalizing your articles, please extend the same courtesy to us. From checking out many Andalusian web sites, it is clear that some aficianados of that breed dispute the presence of any "Arabian" blood in their animals. Conversely, Arabian aficionados claim that the pure, documentable Bedouin Arabian exists in every light breed of horse.

However, this is not an issue that needs to be fought about. No one anywhere wrote down pedigrees to any great degree -- at least, none that can be traced from then to the modern day -- until about the 13th century at the earliest. So, prior to the High Middle Ages and Renaissance, we really can only await DNA research to know the details. The rest is at best educated theories based on historical research, skeleton studies, and occasionally legend and myth.

The bottom line is that oriental horses of the desert, whether called "Arabian" or not, obviously spread about the world at different times in history. There is room to debate how much "oriental" or "Arabian" blood came to the Andalusian breed only via an ancient influx by proto-Arabians to the Barb or in part from Bedouin Arabians in the 8th century, but the only real debate is a question of when and how much and within how many generations, a question that only sequencing of the horse genome can answer for good. Aside from that, we have history, archaelology and palentology.

Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate that modern Barb and Iberian horses have intermixed at some time in history, especially via mares. So DNA alone can't detail which came first, but obviously they crossed. Similar comparison studies have apparently not been done on Barbs and Arabians.

However, it is pretty clear that most light horse breeds of Europe were created from more than one original proto-horse source, whether through natural breeding or with human guidance after domestication, and quite likely, both.

Oriental proto-horses, the ancestors of Arabians, were light and agile, developed for a desert climate, not adapted for a colder, European climate. Tarpans are the proto-horses drawn on the caves of Southern Europe, animals that were shorter-legged and less agile than the Oriental horse. The "forest horse," adapted for a cold, damp climate, existed in northern Europe and was the ancestor of the modern draft horse. The Andalusian itself in type and conformation clearly shows that all three types contributed to its development. Only question is when. Here is the most likely path:

1) In the Ice Age, there may have been a land bridge across Gibralter that would have allowed desert-adapted oriental horses and Tarpan-type horses of southern Europe to interbreed in a climate within the adaptation range of both.  This may have been the first time oriental and European horses crossed.

2) While Iberian horses are spoken of by ancient Roman writers, remember that ancient Europe had seen invasions from North Africa via Carthage.  If Hannibal brought over Elephants, certainly not native to Europe, he obviously brought trained war horses as well.  Inevitably, these horses crossbred with local animals, making a second, this time human-induced, influx of oriental horses to Europe.  Whether the horses of the Carthaginains could actually be called "Arabian" is doubtful, but they would have been desert-adapted, oriental-type horses.

3) Finally, Muslim invaders took their horses with them as Islam spread from Arabian to North Africa and then to Spain.  The Moors stayed in southern Spain for several centuries.  Inevitably, war mares had to be replaced and would have crossbred with local animals all along the way.  Stallions were not used in warfare by the Bedouin, but would have been brought into conquered areas to "improve" local stock.  Thus, Arabian blood would have crossed with that of the north African horses, from the Hegira onward, influencing the modern Barb, and there is clear evidence from mitochondrial DNA that Barbs and Andalusians share some ancestry.  The historical record suggests that some Moors took Spanish horses back with them to North Africa as well, and the modern Barb shows characteristics of both Arabian and Iberian horses.

So, if you want to discuss this issue further, please do it here and don't vandalize the article itself. Montanabw 04:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

adding
I want to submit the following statement, but it claims there are "blacklist words" there.

The oldest and purest of all horse breeds, the Arab is considered by many people to be the most beautiful equine animal in the world. With its refined head and dished profile, expressive eyes, high spirits and unique, floating action, it is undoubtedly on of the most exquiste of creatures. Although it has certainly been bred with great care for many centuries, its exact origins are unclear. Depictions of horses in ancient art suggest that horses of Arab type lived in the Arabian peninsula as long ago as 2,000 - 3,000BC. Like the desert tribes with whom they have lived for so long, Arabian horses became superbly well adapted to life in a harsh environment, having extreme powers of endurance, tremendous soundness and ability to thrive on the most meagre of rations.

More than any horse, it is the Arab which has influenced the development of equine breeds throughout the world. This Arabian influence was initiated in the seventh and early eighth AD when the folowers of Islam spread across North Africa and into Spain. The horses they took with them were greatly superior to the native stock of other lands and so began a process of upgrading, through the introduction of Arabian blood, that was to go on for many centuries and, indeed, still goes on today.

Pure-bred Arabian horses are now bred throughtout the world. As well as appearing in the show ring, they are particulary suited to the sport of endurance riding. In recent times, too, there has been a resurgence of interest in Arab racing.


 * Basically, that's because the material is not NPOV--too much flowery language, etc. I had to cut out a bunch of that stuff when I did the major rewrite and cleanup of the article last March.  Every time stuff like this goes in, someone else comes by and inserts things like "Arabs are too high-strung, yada, yada, yada..." the usual stuff that all Arabian owners endure... We might think Arabs are the greatest horses in the world, but at the end of the day, everyone else thinks their favorite breed is the best too, and hence wikipedia's insistence on NPOV does make sense in that light.  I just finished cleaning up after a major P*****g match with some Andalusian people, who take exception to claims their horses have Arabian blood, claiming their horses are the pure descendants of horses native to the region, unchanged since time immemorial.  Only way to end that fight was to toss everything about Andalusians down to the controversies section and remove claims from the body of the article .Montanabw 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination -- On Temporary Hold
Wow. This article clearly has broad coverage of the topic, well-established notability, and a huge start on its inline citations.

I'm going to put this article On Hold. I have several comments, but feel that only one of these needs to be addressed before I would assign GA status. The first comment below is the reason for the hold. The other comments I will leave for you to address as a part of your quest for WP:FA. In particular, I would strongly suggest looking at the second comment below:

That's all. Excellent work! --Ling.Nut 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some terms specific to horse breeding, such as "throatlatch" and "flea-bitten," which I could not find in either Wikipedia or Wikitionary. ((note: mostly fixed Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)))Please consider finding all such terms and adding entries in one or the other of those (depending, of course, upon the expected amount of information to be added). This is counter to attribute 1 (a) of What is a good article?  Note that this is the  only reason I am placing this article on hold. I feel it would be a service to the community to track down all such terms specific to horse-breeding and add info  to Wikipedia or Wiktionary.
 * There are several specific historical events that are uncited. I would consider this a key component of Verifiability, also a part of attribute 2 of  WP:WIAGA. For example:
 * "Prices skyrocketed, especially in the United States, with a record-setting public auction price for a mare named NH Love Potion, who sold for $2.55 million in 1984, and the largest syndication in history for an Arabian stallion, Padron, at $11,000,000." ((note: Citation added Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)))
 * "Upon Lady Anne's death in 1917, the Blunts' daughter, Judith, Lady Wentworth, inherited the Wentworth title and Lady Anne's portion of the estate, and obtained the remainder of the Crabbet Stud following a protracted legal battle with her father, Wilfrid."((note: citation added Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)))
 * Also much of the information about their Bedouin origins, and Bedouin terms such as "mitbah" and "jibbah" is uncited.
 * Arguably, the article may delve a bit too deep into detail; some historical details may be deletable.
 * Made requested changes. Let me know if that did the trick or if more is needed. Montanabw 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I'm promoting this article to GA status.
 * Having said that, you really, really need to get to work on citing many statements such as:
 * "The Bedouin knew the pedigrees and history of the best war mares as well as they knew their own family or tribal history."
 * "There are now more Arabians registered in North America than in the rest of the world put together."
 * In general, specific facts (especially historical ones, such as "...another was Knyszyna, the royal stud of Polish king Zygmunt II August") and strong generalizations such as the two given above need to be cited.
 * You might wanna wikilink to other horse breeds mentioned.. Morgan, etc.
 * There was one instance of croup that was really far from the original wikilink. If a term is mentioned again really far down the text, it's OK to wikilink to it twice. ((mostly fixed, monitor...Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
 * What's an "outcross"? ((Wikilinked Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)))
 * As the article stands today, I think there are far too many uncited statements to try for WP:FA. In fact, some WP:GA reviewers may not have passed it (but I think most would).
 * Congratulations, --Ling.Nut 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your help. I will periodically add citation and wikilinks to the article as time permits. Montanabw 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article's GA Status is being Reviewed
This article's GA Status is being Reviewed for possible delisting. Please see this section for details. --Ling.Nut 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sabino
Trying not to write a book about sabino Arabians. The point is that there are semantic differences of opinions between researchers and the SAHR on what is a "maximum" sabino. (Everyone but the Arabian people call a maximum sabino an almost white or pure white horse, some argue all white horses are just maximum sabinos) Also the SB1 gene is probably NOT the one that causes sabino in Arabians, it's a dominant, and two copies produce white horses, yet there are essentially no true white Arabians and the very few sabino-white arabians (somewhere between two and eleven, apparently) are far fewer than would appear with a dominantecially when sabinos were thrown out of the registry until the dawn of DNA testing, esp.  Montanabw 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Different Areas of Arabian Breeding
When I was going through this article I noticed it didn't have a section about the current bloodlines within Arabians. Within the Arabian industry today, there are several main areas that leading studs brought over to America have started (Polish, Egyptian, Crabbet, Russian are the main ones). I don't know enough about every one of these to write a section on it but each of these has a few of its own leading studs as well as general disposition and physical characteristics; this could also be in the 'controversy' section depending on how much people do or do not believe disposition breeding, but, coming from the Arabian horse industry myself, generally there are certain dispositions recognized within these bloodlines- although there is a section about Russian and Polish breeding in the history section, I think more should be included in the article regarding the fact that these are still considered in breeding today especially for disposition and conformation. One more thing, right now this article does not include anything about Half-Arabians, who are included in shows and also have certain disposition factors depending on the other 'half' of their breeding (I say 'half' because Half-Arabs are any horses who have 1/2 or more Purebred Arab in them, so it could be 1/4 saddlebred and 3/4 arab, but this is still considered a half arab in the show world). I don't know if that might be a future addition or a completely different page, although I don't think it has enough history to have an entire page. 69.229.211.208 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm half with you. It couldn't hurt to create a new article on half-Arabians and link it (there already is one on National Show Horses. However, as for modern  bloodlines, oh gawd no!!!   Once you start dealing with living horses, the "politics" never ends (look at the length of the "laundry lists" of "famous warmbloods" if you wanty to see what I mean).  There is also very little mention of any "Legends" either, for the same reason.  Once someone mentions even famous deceased horses like Bask, then someone else will want to know why we don't mention Raffles, at which point someone else will talk about Ansata Ibn Halima, then yet another person will claim the Davenport lines are being neglected, and before you know it there will be 100 horses in there.  Then, someone from outside North America will chime in that the whole article is too American-centric and it goes on and on...the article is already a bit too long. Instead, I think it a better approach to create articles about individual horses on their own, and put them in the category: Arabian and part-Arabian horses. There are already artcles about Skowronek, Mesaoud, Cass Ole, and El Mokhtar that I know of. Likewise, a number of famous Quarter Horses have their own articles. Montanabw 03:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of sick horse guy
I don't see what the problem is? This is sourced information and adds to the overall historical facts of Arabian horses. Why is it every time I add it to an article it gets reverted? "In July, 2005 Kenneth Pinyan died from a ruptured colon after receiving anal intercourse from a full grown Arabian Stallion ." 68.143.88.2 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's better, now try to be civil in your edit summaries. Please explain how this event is important to or improves the article.  Just because an arabian horse was involved isn't good enough.    Acroterion  (talk)  20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the "temperament" section should be expanded. The expansion should cover the Arabian breeds aggressiveness compared to other horse species, as well as it's potential threat to handlers due to it's aggressiveness and combined intelligence.  With this, a couple cited instances would hurt where someone was careless with an Arabian and either injured themselves or the horse.  This would include acts of stupidity, such as Kenneth Pinyan.  I can find sources for all this information, make it read logical and organized, and it WILL make the article improved and more complete. 75.41.186.210 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This actually makes sense. I'm open to discussing this logically, however, I support be bold and can edit this page since I'm a contributing member.  Donny  417  00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Arabian is not inherently an aggressive breed of horse. They are not mean or vicious by nature, they are intelligent and people-centered. Children can ride them and they happen to be one of the only breeds where stallions may be shown by youth exhibitors. This can be sourced. Only a horse subjected to extreme cruelty or some unbelievably weird training would behave in such a manner. I haven't checked the sources on this unfortunate incident, but there is even some open question if the horse in question was actually a genuine Arabian, or some sort of crossbred. Montanabw (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally I like to research things, but this subject may be the exception. None the less, I can not find where the horses "breed" was ever questioned.  All I can find states it was indeed an Arabian.  Can you provide a link to the sources you claim question the breed?  Donny  417  00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a search of the Arabian horse registry at http://www.arabianhorses.org/registration/HorseSearchSubmit.asp Using the partial name "Bullseye" reveals only one horse with that component in its name, and the horse in question was foaled in April 2004, thus in July of 2005, it was only a yearling, not sexually mature (though not impossible for a yearling to "perform") and certainly would not even have been a "full grown Arabian Stallion" and I'll bet that its owners would easily verify that it wasn't the horse in question. Lots of people claim that some partbred cull with no papers that they picked up at an auction is an Arabian, even if it isn't. Absent evidence that the horse was registered, there is no way to "prove" the horse was actually a purebred Arabian. But even if it was, the point is that Arabians aren't vicious animals by nature, they don't normally behave this way, and this unfortunate incident really has no need to be in an article about the breed. Montanabw (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that every single Arabian born in the United States is registered at Arabianhorses.org? That is absurd.  Just because something is not registered on a website doesn't mean it just can't be real.  There are several sources, not just one, several that claim it is an Arabian breed horse.  So, either all these sources are simply "mistaken", or, not every single Arabian ever born is registered on Arabianhorses.com.  I'm going to build support to expand and revise this article with the information in question as I believe it is undeniable, sourced information that is unique and notable in respect with Arabian breed horses.   Donny  417  01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, you said, "I did a search of Arabian horse registry...", Isn't there some kind of rule on No Original Research on Wikipedia?  Donny  417  01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did an owner/breeder search with the Arabian Horse Registry, which, I might add, is a publically available (for a fee) database of information on the Arabian Horse, including breeding, pedigrees, owners, racing records, showing records, etc. etc. While there is a Kenneth Pinyan (from Washington state) shown with a membership number, they show no purebred or partbred Arabians owned or bred. I too, don't see how this particular piece of information is relavant to the Arabian breed. In fact, it smacks of a synthesis, by extrapolating from the one observed fact (which may or may not relate to a purebred Arabian) to the "Arabian breeds aggressiveness compared to other horse species, as well as it's potential threat to handlers due to it's aggressiveness and combined intelligence." If you had some studies that showed that a certain percentage of Arabian horses were aggressive and that that percentage was greater than the percentage of aggressive horses in other breeds, then it'd be fair game.


 * This particular example is beyond 'careless' and certainly can't be used to show that any breed of horse is naturally aggressive. I mean, come on, it's not like you wouldn't have to train the horse to do this, because it's not exactly in stallion's nature to have anal intercourse with people. I've handled stallions, owned them, helped breed them, and I can't say that as a female I've EVER had a stallion show sexual interest in me. I'd have to train them to be interested that way (and my, isn't THAT an icky though ... blech!) so using an example of bestiality gone wrong as an example of 'Arabian agressiveness' is a stretch and into the the policy against synthesis WP:SYN. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the web site of the official breed registry. And yes, without registration, a horse cannot be claimed as an Arabian. Partbred maybe, but not purebred. You fail to understand. That is called verifiability. Unless the horse is registered with the Arabian horse association (arabianhorses.org), or another registry recognized by the World Arabian Horse Association (WAHO), it cannot be verified to be a purebred Arabian and it would be fraud to promote the animal as such. To analogize, I can claim you are purple, that doesn't mean you are. I could even tell a newspaper reporter that you are purple and they could print an article that says you are purple, that still wouldn't make you purple. And while I have zero interest in pursuing the issue, I can reassure you that Arabian horses as a breed have no inherent propensity to act this way. You cannot verify such a statement. What we are discussing here is animal abuse. Montanabw (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, comments like "go eat shit and die" are never going to get content included. Second, suggesting that reliable, published sources support the idea that the cause of the man's death was the vindictive temperament of Arab horses is, quite plainly, completely laughable. This info has no implications for the breed of horse the man had sex with. The sheer size of species in question, combined with the relative fragility of the human lower digestive tract, is what caused the man's death. It could have been any breed, and the fact that it was an Arabian is completely irrelevant. And this is supported by verification in news sources and medical consensus. This content is borderline trolling imo. To want to expand the section is admirable, but coming to an article with a pre-disposed mission of making it lean towards a certain POV on a breed is WP:POINT disruption. Furthermore, breeding behavior is probably the single least important factor in determining a breed's aggressiveness. All other factors of human-horse and inter-horse interaction are what should be expanded. VanTucky (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will note that the article itself is already very long and really doesn't need much in the way of expansion (smile). I think it's already the longest horse breed article in wikipedia and the only one with GA status.  Montanabw (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'm late to this party. But I'll vouch for everyone else and say Arabians are in no way an "aggressive" breed, at least no more than any other. Training, and to some extent the horse's breeding (and by that, I mean sire and dam) has a lot to do with a horse's relationship with humans. Actually, I can't think of any particular horse breed that is known for its aggression. Quite a few of the greatest TB racehorses have been aggressive (that's part of what made them great on the track) but as a breed TBs are certainly not considered aggressive or dangerous to humans.

As for "potential threat to handlers due to it's aggressiveness and combined intelligence": that just made me laugh. Gotta watch out for those Arabians, plotting to kill us all :) Eventer 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, the Arabian's I've owned were never plotting to kill me, but plotting to get extra treats, or figuring out how to open their stall doors or how to remove their blankets or how to pull up posts to get to the better grass in the other pasture.... Ealdgyth | Talk 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (now that this is posted in the right spot) So, let me get this straight, before human beings started "registering" horses, purebred Arabians couldn't have existed? This is what your saying, and it's rubbish. Purebred + Purebred = Purebred, regardless of "registration". It's called...math. I agree with the GA status though, I didn't notice that. Although, that doesn't mean an article can't be improved. However, you probably do know horses better than I do, so it seems I have no choice but to cease with the "aggressiveness" approach until I can find reliable sources (if I find them). Donny  417  03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that purebred is a human concept that is tied to the idea of a registry, most of the time. There is no 'purebred' without some way of determining that, so if there is no registry for a breed, there is not really a way of determining purebred. Yes, Arabian's existed in the Bedouin culture before any registries, but even they had documentation that certified a horse was of good breeding, although there was no 'registry' beyond that. Generally a horse breeder won't refer to a purebred unless they mean a registered horse, and the Arabian registries of the world don't even call a Bedouin bred horse purebred, they refer to a horse as 'desert bred', which is actually considered 'more' pure than a registered purebred Arabian, at least to some breeders - such as Khamsa Website.


 * What I am saying, is that when I talk about a purebred horse, I am using it in the context of a registered with the appropriate Arabian Horse Registry, from whatever country that might be. If I need to refer to a horse bred by Bedouin's, I'd call that horse a desert bred or Bedouin bred. I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that the Bedouin themselves referred to their horses as 'pure in strain' ... although I am not an expert by any means in the breeding systems of the Bedouin nor their culture. For that matter, I don't call Quarter horses that predate the American Quarter Horse Association being formed purebreds either, they are just Quarter horses, or short horses, or Billys or whatever. They couldn't have been purebred, as there wasn't a system of saying what a purebred was, at least in my mind. Same for the Thoroughbred before the publication of the General Stud Book. Hope this explains at least a little better how I'm using the terms. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, pretty much, Donny. That's why there are things we call a breed registry. Basically, while there probably was an original wild "oriental" prototype that had a similar appearance, the "pure" or Asil Arabian came into being when the Bedouin people started recording the lineage of their horses, roughly around the 8th century--before written registries, the Bedouin kept an oral history tradition and swore to their purity by Allah and the Holy Quran, which I'll take in addition to written records that date to the 13th century. In other words, if you can't trace a horse's pedigree in all lines to a horse bred by a Bedouin who swore by Allah and the Holy Qu'ran that the horse was pure (or at least to a horse that the importer convinced the breed registry came from the Bedouin who swore it was Asil), then it ain't an Arabian. (smile). Likewise, if you can't trace a Thoroughbred horse to a written, documented source that goes back to the General Stud Book of England, you won't be able to put it on the racetrack. If you can't trace an Andalusian horse to the records of the Carthusian Monks of Spain, it ain't an Andalusian. Animal breeders of these old breeds are fussy that way. Have a nice day. Montanabw (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ealdgyth, that does help. I don't know a lot about horses or the terms people use to distinguish them.  Montanabew, your response was worthless (smile), I'm glad that in the 13th century some "desert people" swore to Allah that a horse was in fact a descendant of another wild horse, imagine that!(smile).  It's just so hard to believe a horse was born from another horse.  I'm glad that the first human beings in that region found the only two "true" Arabians in existence and were able to swear to Allah when it had offspring.  Just think, Arabians might not even exist at all if Allah was never thought up! (smile).  Well, I'm off to bed. (smile).  Hopefully a computer virus never attacks and destroys the data on the severs of Arabianhorses.org, just image, all the Arabians...gone! (smile).  My face hurts, (smile).

Sincerely though, thanks for the explanation on the formal technicality of registering Ealdgyth. That does make sense as I can see the difficultly in authenticating a horses breed without such a system. Donny 417  04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, I have obtained a list of cited, reliable references in regards to an Arabians aggressive nature. I believe the temperament should be expanded, in a neutral manner, to depict all aspects of an Arabians demeanor, both positive AND negative.


 * When I'm finished finding, reviewing, and authenticating all my sources, I'll edit on the terms already previously agreed to (see top of this section from user Ealdgyth), "...If you had some studies that showed that a certain percentage of Arabian horses were aggressive and that that percentage was greater than the percentage of aggressive horses in other breeds, then it'd be fair game.
 * ..." per Wikipedia guidelines (of course).


 * Here are some of the sources I have so far:


 * March, 2000, 29 year old woman dies after being dragged for 10 minutes by a skittish Arabian horse.


 * June through September, 2000, violent behavior noticed in herd of Arabian Stallions.


 * A biography from a notable Arabian horse trainer stating the, “It's the pedigree” in reference to aggressive temperament in some Arabians.


 * I'll find a non-POV, encyclopedatic, and neutral method for inserting the information which references consequences of improper Arabian horse training (using Kenneth Pinyan as an example of course). Donny  417  17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd really like this to be a team effort. If some of you would supply feedback on my sources and help me establish the best way to proceed I would greatly appericate it.  If we work together the article is bound be better itself.   Donny  417  17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Donny, I'd suggest that you could find similar information on virtually every kind of horse. Horses can and do kick, bite, buck, run away, and scrape off their riders on trees. Anecdotes are meaningless. If there was a referenced, comparative study of horse breeds that compared relative temperament, that would be useful, but simply finding alarming stories about Arabian horses doesn't go very far. My mother once fell off a Percheron - a large and very docile breed - and broke her nose after the horse was stung by a bee and bolted - does that mean Percherons are unusually dangerous?

I recommend that you carefully read WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS. You appear to be trying to make a point by using selective information. Simply providing sources does not mean that it is automatically relevant to the subject at hand. Consensus means that you have to convince other editors that you have a valid contribution, especially in an article that is relatively mature, as this one is. I'm not saying that the temperament angle can't be expanded, but it needs to reflect a broadly comparative range of experience across multiple horse breeds.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, and I agree. I'll try and find a comparative study which is reliable.  I'm also open to working with the other editors (see above), as I do understand that one contributers contributions are twice as diverse when combined with another's.  It's Wikisprit!  And yes, I'm extremely familiar with WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as the other "guidelines".


 * Once again, thanks for the feedback and I'll keep you updated. :) Donny  417  17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your first citation (from the Darwin awards) is related to improper training techniques. Any breed would have likely done the same thing. Would be more acceptable as an illustration on improper training techniques, but the breed is only incidental to the death. Note the bit about 'fastening the other end around her waist'. That's the first thing any trainer learns NOT to do to ANY breed of horse. I don't do it to QHs, or to draft breeds, or even to ponies. Because if something spooks the horse, you are going to get dragged and you can't let go! Duh! Your second article doesn't compare the aggressive behavior to other breeds, merely within the breed, proving that the colts were more aggressive than the fillies, if I'm reading the abstract correctly - "The studies included 36 young Arabian horses (18 fillies and 18 colts) bred in the Biaka stud. Aggressive behaviour of the horses was observed in the pasture and in the stable between June and September 2000. The following behavioural patterns were considered aggressive: threat bite, bite, kick threat, kick and chase. Various patterns of agonistic behaviour in both sexes were calculated. The patterns of aggressive behaviour of young Arabian horses differed in the observed groups. The main factor in the deviation was sex and nervous balance for the members of the herd." It also seems to include herd behavior, i.e. while the horses are loose in a pasture. Without reading the actual article, I'm thinking this is more probably a study of inter-horse behavior, than horse-people behavior, but it's hard to be sure without reading the complete article. The third article, isn't showing aggressiveness, unless you take the quote out of context. The full quote is (referring to Afire Bey V, who is the subject of the article, not the trainer, and who is being praised as being non-agressive around people) "That temperament is not such a mystery, Sheila Varian says. It's the pedigree, of course, but it's also a result of the way he was raised. 'He was raised out, as all of ours are. We breed good temperament, but we allow them to grow up as horses. They don't get confused as to whether they are a person or a horse. They know what they are, they like what they are, and they're not trying to be something they aren't. They're not after you, they're not biting you, because you're not a horse, and they are.'" If you're referring to the bit here "He puts the two stallions into perspective. 'You can walk Afire Bey to the breeding shed and back without being an experienced horseman. Noble Express has the same characteristics. Out in the ring, he's young, a little bit green, a little skittish and a little afraid, but willing to try. He's a very, very aggressive horse that even though he's green, he' s very willing to put his heart into it and try. But then, the moment you get off of him, a normal person can walk right up to him, put his arm around his neck, and he's gentle as can be. 'Afire Bey V has always thrown off good size, a great neck, and good motion,' Liniger concludes. 'This horse is a bit more athletic, and has everything else we want." where he's comparing IXL Noble Express to Afire Bey V, you need to see the full context of the stuff about Noble Express, the aggressiveness they are referring to is in the show arena, where Noble Express is a park horse, the top level of Saddle seat that the Arabian shows allow. Aggressive here refers to the horse going all out, balls to the wall as it were, to show with extreme speed and action in the show class. (And boy does Noble Express do it .. I had the honor to watch him win the National Championship in purebred park last year... WOW! half an hour of full out extreme actioned trot. The audience was going wild) You'll note that the trainer goes on to say that the stallion is gentle when not under saddle. At most, your third citation proves that some bloodlines within the Arabian breed are considered more aggressive than other bloodlines. This holds true for all breeds. There is at least one bloodline of Thoroughbreds that is known for being rather rank and nasty. I know that Quarter Horses, the Hancock bred horses are considered much more rank than other bloodlines, and that the Weiscamp bred bloodlines are noted for being almost too smart for their own good (some folks call them the Arabians of the Quarter Horse breed, in fact). Every horse breed has bloodlines that are fairly or unfairly considered 'nastier' than other bloodlines, and a lot of times, when you dig down, you discover that its more human politics than actual truth. As far as finding examples of "inserting the information which references consequences of improper Arabian horse training " the problem most of us are having is that these examples aren't specific to the Arabian breed. They don't show that it was the Arabian part of the horse, the part that makes it an Arabian rather than some other breed, that was at fault. Pinyan's example just shows that you shouldn't have anal intercourse with an animal that is so much more well endowed than your own species. The example of the woman trampled by her green horse just shows that you shouldn't tie yourself to your horse (duh!), which is pretty much elementary horse training, and unrelated to the breed of the horse. The only example you cited above that might even have a chance to show somewhat you're arguing is the second one, and you're citing an abstract, which isn't clear on exactly what the study's methodology was and how they defined aggressiveness. If they are looking at horse on horse aggressiveness, it certainly doesn't prove that Arabians are more aggressive to people than other breeds. And it certainly doesn't appear, from the abstract, to be a study comparing the percentage of aggressive horses in the Arabian breed against the percentage of aggressive horses in other breeds. Given what the abstract says, I have to say that to my mind it doesn't appear to show what I think you're trying to prove.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New edit point
Ealdgyth, thank you for the feedback. It's going to probably be rather hard to find a reliable, comparative study regarding the aggressiveness of different breeds, especially if what you say is true about the Arabian. I'll do what I can, but I can't guarantee I can find such information. If I do find such a study, from, lets say a University, suggesting that Arabians are a "more aggressive" breed than others, and it confirms to in your mind the point I'm trying to make, I have your support? Donny 417  17:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a break, relax and chill out so I can keep a level head in this heated debate. I'm not sure if I'll be back, but if I'm not I can't stand the thought of my hard work in contributing to this article going to waste.  Here is the source code for what is my final appeal to improve this article:


 * Arabians are mostly docile and personable by nature. This characteristic makes them a very popular horse for even the most inexperienced riders. However, with improper training injuries to both rider and/or horse can occur, with some injuries often serious or life threatening. Abuse will also cause erratic and unpredictable behavior in an Arabian, especially a stallion causing injury or death as seen with Kenneth Pinyan, who in July, 2002 died after receiving anal intercourse from such an animal.

Just a follow up here: I reviewed the abstract, which appears to be a herd behavior study that happened to be in a herd of Arabians; no comparison to other breeds. The behaviors described in the article are typical hierarchy dominance behaviors common to equine herds of any breed. As for your Pinyan reference, per wikipedia guidelines, its not proper verification to use wikipedia articles to reference other wikipedia articles. And as mentioned elsewhere, the Darwin awards site is hardly authoritative on horse behavior -- in fact, is it's intent not to publicize foolish HUMAN behavior? Montanabw (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you to all the silent watches who quietly supported my unorthodox approach toward article improvement.  Donny  417  18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny417 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to see the article, not just an abstract. I'm betting you don't find such a thing, but you never know. I certainly haven't heard of such a study, and I try to keep up on general horse trends. Keep in mind I own a purebred, a half-arabian and a three-quarters arabian, plus have owned stallions and worked extensively with Arabians in the past. As well, I've worked with most of the other prevelant breeds in the United States, and while I have my own prejudices (personally, I will never own an Appaloosa because they in my experience they come in either really really incredibly wonderful or outright rank and should be shot, but that probably relates to the fact that I've mainly worked with Appaloosas in rental stables and they don't seem to like that situation) I recognize that it's pretty hard to make any sort of generalized statement about any breed, especially in relation to other breeds. And I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for that sort of comparison, honestly. However, that darwin award citation you found? It REALLY would work very well in one of the horse training articles, as an example of what NOT to do. It's a very classic example of how not to behave around a horse. You can find any number of citations in training books to not tie a horse to yourself, and if I'm understanding wikipedia policies right, you can use an example like that along with the citations from training books, in order to illustrate the more boring textbook citations. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth, thanks for picking up the thread here after I had to go to sleep! And why DO Arabian aficionados seem to wind up handling Appaloosas? Worst bite I ever got was from an Appy, and so was my second worst kick. (the worst kick was my own fault -- the horse wasn't kicking at me, I just had myself in the way)


 * Donny, hope you have figured things out. The Darwin awards are hardly an authoritative source on horse behavior. And again, there's that issue of "sure someone said it was an Arabian, but who knows?  May have been breed-bashing prejudice." But yes, if there were some sort of peer-reviewed University study of horse aggressiveness, a source like that would be well worth considering.


 * As for pedigrees and registration, actually, the Purebred Arabian "Veragua" mares of Spain had precisely that "what if the pedigrees disappeared?" problem: the breeding records of the ranch were destroyed in the Spanish Civil War and the owner of the stud was murdered.  So there were a number of mares believed to be purebred, but the only people alive to identify them were grooms who only knew their stable names, not their "real" names.  The Arabian horse registry in Spain accepted them anyway and gave them new names, each beginning with a "V" to indicate that they were purebred bloodstock of the Veragua Stud, pedigree unknown.  But to this day, there is a contingent of people who claim that a few of the "V" mares were crossbreds and it took the Spanish registry about 25 years to convince the American registry to accept horses with Veragua bloodlines.


 * As for the Bedouin, the life of man and horse in the desert "made" the Arabian breed (the wild prototype wouldn't have been too people-centered at first, eh?) They selectively bred the most suitable animals to one another until they got to a result they wanted, then carefully tracked those animals until they had descendents that bred true to type and form. Takes a lot of time and trouble. And by the time you get to people who wrote down pedigrees around 1300, the Bedouin could trace a horse's lineage back in an oral tradition for many generations...and they had a true-breeding population.  Thus, recorded ancestry, plus true-breeding traits = a "real" breed.  But I go on and on.  You think I'm fussy, read the bit in the article about the "Blue Star" designation.  Those folks have me beat.  Montanabw (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Horse sex death
Donny asked for my input, and my view is that there's no particular reason to add this anecdote to this article. Exploding Boy 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Iberian Horses - VS. Arabian Horses
Check your sources. There's been substantial documented evidence as to the most likely migratory patterns of the ancient ancestors to both iberian and arabian horses. Its already been proven. There is no further debate.

Seperately, there is no formal documented DNA evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Arabian horses is the foundation to EVERY known light horse breed. European light breeds can, however, thank the Iberian horse's foundation and contribution to their development and refinement, as per DNA evidence. That many breeders utilized Arabian blood to resolve mutated genertics brought about by their own faulty and careless inbred and linebred approach - and continue to do so to this day - is true.

The article lacks objectivity and thorough research. It is a biased and slanted propaganda for a breed of which less than 5% actually hold true to its foundation, body type and temperment standards. There are many statements in this article that are NOT verifiable. I question the objectivity, the obvious slant, and the research that went into the creation of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.178.109 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the article passed Good Article status, which means outside editors felt that it was sourced and verifiable. Personally, I am more than willing to look at new sources, but I need to be able to see them and evaluate them myself. Making claims that the article contains unverifiable statements without actually stating what claims you find unobjective isn't very helpful as far as including information you might find more objective. Keep in mind, I'm not the people who mainly wrote this article, so you'll probably hear from others also. It's a joint effort on wikipedia, of course. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This critique by an anonymous IP is just another round of Arabian-bashing and presents no alternative sources or standards to the extensive documentation that is in this article. And at no place is there a claim in the article so broad as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the Arabian is the foundation of "every" light horse breed. No breed can claim this (and if you want lack of objectivity and lack of sources, please, go look in the mirror at the Andalusian horse article. Which I have left alone in spite of its fantastic and unsourced claims -- all in the name of keeping peace in the family. )  However, most modern light horse breeds today can in fact be traced to Arabian forebears, particularly via the Thoroughbred. The horses of Spain also had influence, of course, and some Iberian breeds do in fact have Arabian ancestry, the Carthusian monks documented it. And please, check the archives. The "Andalusian versus Arabian" edit war ended a year ago. DNA evidence -- from U Cordoba in Spain, no less -- clearly shows Barb and Andalusian crossbreeding and while this is not a direct link to the Arabian, as the Barb and Arabian DNA connection has not yet been studied, the followers of Mohammad did bring Arabian bloodstock with them as they conquered North Africa, there is written documentation of Arabian horses in Spain by 1300 for sure, as the Islamic rulers set up breeding operations there, and both the Barb and the Arab, along with the Akhal teke and Turkoman, all clearly derive from the oriental prototype. So if you want to bash this article, then it is your obligation to provide sources. And yes, I have actually read everything I used as a source in this article. Deb Bennett is no fan of Arabians, but even she has to admit their influence. Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA status
Due to the lack of citations, other editors challenging the objectiveness of the article, and the biased opinions of this specific breed, I propose to nominate this article to be de-listed from GA status within 7 days. Donny 417  21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 85 citations. What "other editors"? You're into WP:DISRUPT territory and can expect to be blocked if you continue.   Acroterion  (talk)  21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe he's referring to the above Anon editor I invited to put forth their sources they claim contradict the sources currently in the article. I have noticed that the Anon editor hasn't replied, but I'm AGFing and paitently awaiting the sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has been in GA status for MONTHS. The "Iberian horse/Andalusian horse" edit was was also settled months ago, check the archives.  The Andalusian people hate the fact that Arab blood was introduced into their breed by at least the 1300's, a fact I graciously have kept out of the Arabian article to settle an edit war.  They can put up sources,  or go away.  Montanabw (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Acro, telling people they are going to be blocked for speaking their opinion on content is not okay. I also have felt, as a GA reviwer, that this article excessively applauds the breed. If the idea that we should delist this really is the fringe, disruptive idea you say it is, then that can be demonstrated at a civil GA review debate. Donny, I suggest you create one there, and we'll see how it goes. VanTucky (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm not able to create a GA review because some have deemed that I'm disruptive in my edits, and they have managed to gain an ally admin. That being said, I'm not going to bring up a GA review concerning this article out of fear that it may be interpreted as a disruptive action.  However, I will assist in any GA review another editor initiates.


 * I apologize for any edits that might have been thought disruptive, however please understand that some people believe differently than others, and after a while it gets really frustrating when acknowledge or acceptance of a particular edit results in complete denial...especially when you're the minority side of what people view "should" go into an article. None the less, you can expect no disruptions form me.  Although I stand firm in my opinion that a GA review would be a positive thing as it would allow fresh insight and objectiveness to an article which I believe needs it, I will not start one, nor will I ask another use to on my behalf.  Additionally as a good-faith effort, I will limit my editing to minor grammar and/or technical fixes in this and all other articles until things cool down.   Donny  417  14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Hello everyone. I'm sorry to say that I see less than zero-point-zero reason to question the GA status of this article. Difficult to imagine anyone questioning it, for any objective reason. -- Ling.Nut 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When the article spends all of its time gushing over Arabians, then we have a problem. It's well-cited and broad, but hardly neutral imo. NPOV isn't just about the treatment of single issues, it's about the overarching tone of the article. It's a difficult thing to deal with, as articles such as these are usually contributed to primarily by enthusiasts. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, that creates a bit of a systemic bias in the article. But I would prefer simply trying to improve the article, rather than delisting it and ignoring the problems. VanTucky  (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ah, it's clear that your keen insight is far superior to my humble thoughts. I see I must defer to your great editorial expertise. Feel free to work your magic, then, maestro. --Ling.Nut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry if felt my comments above were a personal criticism. They don't have anything to do with your intelligence or judegement. It's just my opinion. This page exists to discuss improvements to the article, and I was voicing my view on how this can be done. But btw, I doubt I'm thinking of changing the article in the same way Donny is. Changing some overly flattering word choice isn't the same as wanting to call a horse breed vicious, man-raping monsters. VanTucky  (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, why don't you try not being sarcastic? It's evident in your tone you have no logical rebuttal towards VanTucky's comments, so instead you decide covering up your lack of cognitive performance not through citing, researching, and pointing out obvious supporting factors for your argument, but instead acting like a jackass. He clearly stated that he would rather see the article improved, isn't that good faith? You already know my feelings through the comments above regarding the articles applauding the Arabian breed. Donny 417  20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:VanTucky has forgotten to read WP:DNFT -- Ling.Nut 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That was expected...so much creative wit! I think he's familiar with DNFT if you read his user talk page. It's ok though, I know you didn't think of that first.  Donny  417  20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Actionable items only, please. Where is all the offending purple prose? List all below. Thank you. --Ling.Nut 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gang, I am happy to look at SPECIFIC concerns. But this article is very long, and it helps to have more to go on than a general sense that it is too flattering. As for "gushing," well, the horse breed articles in general do have this problem, and frankly, if you read some of the others, this one isn't as bad as many.  (Try Andalusian horse please, I don't dare even touch that one for fear of starting the edit war from hell).  Seriously fellows, if you want to improve the horse breed articles, how about surfing over to List of horse breeds and helping out to, say, expand all the stubs, or -- please -- tackle the articles with peacock word tags.  There is a wikiproject horse breeds.  They need people who can write without gushing.  And who understand the concept of wikilinks, And in some cases, just being able to write in fluent English would be a start. (Malwari took too much of my time and I have never even seen one of the things) Oh, there is much to do -- elsewhere.  Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Genetic diseases
Why is it necessary to detail genetic diseases in other breeds? The article is supposed to be about Arabians, and that detail on other breeds makes it a tougher read. Can't we just mention that other breeds share these issues? -- But | seriously | folks   06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying in terms of simplifying the article. The problem is "horse politics."  Arabians are an extremely controversial breed, and one accusation is that they have been genetically weakened from excessive inbreeding, with detractors pointing to the existence of genetic lethals as proof.  Thus, noting that completely different genetic lethals exist in certain other breeds does two things:  Disarms the detractors who want to "slam" the breed, and also keeps hardcore Arabian aficionados from blanking the entire genetic disease section because they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist.  I'll look at the text and see if it can be tightened up some, though.  I am sympathetic to anything that un-bloats the article overall, it's just figuring out how to do it.  (sigh)  Montanabw (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked for a source that says something along the lines of "Arabians are no more susceptible to genetic disease than several other breeds", or words to that effect? I think that would be a better way to address it, if such a source exists. --  But | seriously | folks   07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there IS a source, but the only one I know of is an article I co-authored for a national magazine, actually, but what's the rule on original research? A no-no, correct?  Montanabw (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, however, I will see what can be done. Montanabw (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest reversion
I've reverted a paragraph that was unsourced, and it turns out it was a copyvio from this site. Keep an eye out for it reappearing. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, why this article that gets the romanticized crapola? I will say that this and the Friesian horse articles are two where vandal patrol for peacock words is the biggest overall problem.  To that extent, I'd say you and I are well-suited to be the people to remove Peacock edits HERE! You want fun--or not--read archive one of this talk page, there was SOOO much garbage in here once, this article was once SUCH a mess! Its cleanup was my first GA, and thanks so much for helping to keep it that way!  Montanabw (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aussie Ayrabs
I can supply a nice image of Hector if needed??Cgoodwin (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is a little image-heavy, but yes, the Australian section has no images, so one there would be good, at least as long as it is free and legal. By the way, if you can source that the Australian Jockey Club does list a bunch of Arabians as foundation Animals down there, note a "citation needed" tag is on that section. (just put the cite in parentheses if you have one, I'll make the formatting work)  Montanabw (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will put the image in later. The ASB did record some of the early Arabs as they were then known, but I don't know the number or have access to the early books. Hector was 15-16 hands high and had belonged to Arthur Wellesley, better known as the Duke of Wellington. His exact importation date is uncertain. Hector was an important early sire and his bloodlines survive in TB pedigrees.(sources: "The Arabian Horse in Australia", and "The Australian Bloodhorse") Cgoodwin (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry the image was from a watercolour impression by the author and would therefore be unuseable, even though the author, is deceased. I had assumed it was an old painting! However I have just found "There were many Arab horses brought to Australia during the 1790s and 1800s. About a hundred such sires are listed in the Australian Stud Book........... (source "The Australian Bloodhorse", by Douglas M Barrie; Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1956; p. 96) Cgoodwin (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will add that bit. As for the image of Hector, or any other early Arab, the image itself may be public domain if it's in a work that has an expired copyright. I also can make an image work under a fair use rationale if it's all there is; see what I did with Skowronek as an example.  Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image to Commons: Hector.jpg. I hope that this OK as I found a copy of it, too, in a Land newspaper dated 1995 without attribution. If you need more info on him I do have a little more. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See what I added. Tweak as needed.  Montanabw (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me! Cgoodwin (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, the template was created at WikiProject Horse breeds. I am no expert on infoboxes, but that was the template agreed upon well before I became a wikipedian, it's been around for more than 2 years, anyway. Horse breed standards are often more extensive than the AKC ones for dogs, so it's hard to precisely migrate the template. Montanabw (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I ask because I'm currently reviewing the article for GA Sweeps. I understand that it is hard to change the template, but usually in info boxes external links aren't used to fill in the fields.  If this happens in every horse article, then I'll understand, but it seems strange to me.  Corvus coronoides  talk 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Oh, and explain "GA Sweeps?" Montanabw (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See here for some details on the Sweeps. I would suggest changing that link in the infobox into something other than "Stds" but it's your choice.  As I'm not part of the horse wikiproject, I think it's really up to you.  I'll get back to you with a more detailed review after I get back from vacation.  Corvus coronoides  talk 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * 1) The third paragraph in the article has no citations;  Cited
 * 2) The entire "Colors" section has no citations; cited
 * 3) The first and third paragraph in the "Colors that do not exist in purebreds" section does not have citations; That is because the above section on colors explained that they only come in certain colors, so logically, they do not have any others, thus other material simply points out a couple of obvious conclusions from known data cited previously. Seems illogical to cite again...
 * 4) The "Rabicano or roan?" section has no citations; cited
 * 5) The "Influence on other horse breeds" section has no citations; Hmm, I suppose about 200 other horse breed articles on Wikipedia with sources that say their breed had Arabian ancestors doesn't cut it, eh?  Can't put all 200 cites here, will try and find something that summarizes it.  Sigh...
 * 6) The last paragraph of the "Desert roots" section has no citations; cited
 * 7) The first paragraph of the "Strains and pedigrees" section has no citations; cited
 * 8) The first and second paragraphs in the "From the Middle East to Europe" section has no citations; I think the whole section is from the Harrigan source cited at the end of the third paragraph, do you really want to just source the same material three times in a row? I mean, if you really are going to jerk GA status for not having one cite per paragraph, fine, but this one is overkill
 * 9) The last paragraph in the "Modern warfare and its impact on European studs" section has no citations; will review later
 * 10) The "Arabians today" section has no citations; Cited
 * 11) The first paragraph in the "Uses" section has no citations; cited, but it's an introduction, for pete's sake!
 * 12) The first two paragraphs in the "Competition" section have no citations; seems irrelevant, something to challenge in there?
 * 13) The last paragraph in the "Other activities" section has no citations; ditto
 * 14) The first paragraph in the "Controversies" section has no citations; um, that's because it's an introductory paragraph and all contentions summarized there are explained in detail in subsequent subsections...
 * 15) The "Physical size" Section has no citations; sort of states the obvious, could reference materials from other sections, seems redundant to do so.
 * 16) The "Hip angle" section has no citations; will check materials for sourcing
 * 17) The " "Arabians are magic" beliefs" section has no citations; You haven't read the earlier archives here, have you? (grin) Can romanticizing idiots saying really stupid things be a source?  Yes, I know.  This one is a "widely understood within the industry" thing, will see what's out there
 * 18) The fifth part of the " "Purity" question" has no citations; Suggestions on how to prove a negative? Can't surf 50 preservation sites to say, "nope, none make this claim..."? Seriously, got any ideas?
 * I hope that that helps you find the references for those. Dreamafter  ⇔ 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dreamafter. That is exactly what I meant.  Montanabw, I also replied to your message on my talk page.  Corvus coronoides  talk 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing GA status with FA status. And seriously, even by FA standards if you really think that EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH (yes, I am shouting) needs a citation for GA status or to conform to any other standard, then please provide a specific link to the wikipedia guidelines that specifically say that every single paragraph requires a footnote because I think you are over the top.  I mean "first paragraph of section X has no citations", that would be because it is an INTRODUCTION, and as a general rule, introductory paragraphs are by their nature summaries that introduce what will be discussed (and sourced) as the section proceeds.  I mean, for pete's sake.  I have no problems with a couple of the spots you noted, but I really think you are over the top to threaten to delist the article from GA, particularly when all that is needed to challenge material that you might legitimately think is questionable are a couple of polite  tags.   Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to criterion 2b, at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. Since I am reviewing this article for the Project Quality Sweeps, I think that a quality article needs a cite in every paragraph.  Again, please be civil.  I think that GA's need to be verifiable, and at this point, this article is close to there, and finding cites for the remaining locations will be fine.  You suggest the use of  tags - if I tagged things with those tags, the article would have one every other sentence.  For GA - all I require is at least one cite per paragraph.  Corvus coronoides  talk 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bingo: To that end, I read WP:WIAGA too: Yup, "(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;   I see NOTHING about citing every paragraph.  I do NOT think that a "quality article" needs a cite in every paragraph, particularly for widely known and accepted general knowledge.  I still want to see your evidence for that being more than your personal opinion.  Like I said, if you really find something controversial, counter-intuitive or whatever and have a LEGITIMATE reason to challenge it, then feel free to place appropriate  tags.  The 18 examples above have maybe five or six legitimate concerns that could appropriately be tagged.  But I really think a threat to delist from GA status is overkill, particularly when the version that first obtained GA status (and withstood a challenge at the time, by the way) was less sourced than it is now.   Montanabw (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a quality sweep. And the above criteria applies because to be verifiable, I believe an article should have a cite for at least every main idea - ie, every paragraph.  Since you insist, I will tag all statements that I feel need cites.  Corvus coronoides  talk 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This now has over 100 refs, plenty for a GA, even an FA. 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)
 * The issue I had was because the refs were not evenly dispersed, not that there weren't enough - some sections had likely-to-be-challenged statements that needed cites. Corvus coronoides  talk 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - the point of the sweeps is to check the quality of all GA articles. I can see why this article passed its GA, but to uphold the quality of all articles, we need to make sure that all articles are verifiable.  This applies especially to articles as long as this where controversial statements might slip through the cracks.  Please keep in mind that I am reviewing this article as one who knows nothing about horses - thus sentences that might seem blatantly true to you will seem controversial or likely-to-be-challenged to me.  If such is the case, I would think that other people who don't have prior knowledge of horses will also find some claims to be likely-to-be-challenged.  Corvus coronoides  talk 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that one ref per para is reasonable for a GA but many of the tags you just added are beyond what is need for a GA. You essentially are asking that GAs now meet FA standards and are violating WP:POINT. No wonder so many editors have given up on GAs. Having said that, yes there are a few paras still missing refs. Note that I've written 11 FAs and several GAs, so I know something about this, though I also know nothing about horses. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how 'bout one ref per paragraph? I only added the tags because Montanabw requested them, I added tags where I thought the material could be challenged.  I will pass the article if all paragraphs are cited. Corvus coronoides  talk 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I can live with the tags on the "never" section discussing the colors that do not occur in purebreds, even though it is implicitly sourced by the cite in the first paragraph of the section, but given that Palomino half-Arabs and Pinto half- Arabs are popular, and some people think they are purebreds, it needs to be said. It may take a while to find a source that explicitly says this (though one could search the entire datasource and prove it), as it is simply widespread common knowledge within the breed, but I shall do some digging. I still think it is ludicrous to pull an article from GA status just because there is not a cite on every paragraph, and if this happens here, I will appeal immediately. Some articles may have material so controversial that every sentence needs a cite, others may only need one or two citations for an entire article, a mechanistic approach doesn't seem right to me. Montanabw (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MY suggestion--at least one ref per paragraph and remove the other cite tags. Montanabw just find the best refs you can for each uncited para. With all the other refs here, I think that'd be fine. CC-I think your tags would be needed for a FA. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to go with either the option I offered above or Rlevse's option. Pick the one you like best, Montana.  Corvus coronoides  talk 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is this: If I do not add one single more tag at the moment, beyond what's there, are you going to request this article be delisted from GA status? It is one thing to encourage additional citations as needed, I have no problem with that -- note I added several last night -- but some of these requests will require access to hardcopy books for proper citation, takes a bit longer to dig them out (no Google or word search to go through all 400 pages of Lady Wentworth's book, you know), and it takes some time. If you can just pass it on this round of sweeps, I would be grateful. I ask this because I am in the middle of a massive amount of work tagging articles for WikiProject Horse breeds and am trying to get WikiProject Equine off the ground, plus someone put me in charge of WikiProject horse training, which is such a disaster that I don't even know where to start, so frankly, I have other fish to fry. If you note the history of this page, I probably tweak something here on a weekly or biweekly basis as it is (the rest is reverting vandalism), so it's not like I am fully content with it as is. User:Ealdgyth, who is well-qualified to help edit this article, is on vacation until the 11th or the 16th or something, and she can also help, but right now, it's just me, and I am spread pretty thin. Montanabw (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable just passing this article since this is a quality sweep, but I could extend the hold on the article until you are able to add the hard-copy cites. Does that work?  Corvus coronoides  talk 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, at this point, I don't even know for sure what you are after, do you just want to have two "cite needed" tags fixed that are in the article presently, or what? I have to tell you that a mechanistic rule to cite every paragraph sounds like something left behind by my worst 8th grade English teacher.  It matters to cite facts and challenged material, I have no disagreement there, I see utterly no reason to cite, say, introductory paragraphs.  Seriously, when did the standard for GA change?   Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to either see the remaining tags addressed or just one ref per non-introductory paragraph. Does that sound reasonable?  Also, many over at WP:GA feel that too many articles are being passed that shouldn't be, so this is why the quality sweep is being done.  I don't mean to detract from your work, I am just uncomfortable passing an article this long with such concentrated cites.  I will if the other fact tags are addressed though.  Corvus coronoides  talk 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the remaining tags, that should be within reason, just the ones in the color section? Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those. :) Cheers, Corvus coronoides  talk 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, you are being ridiculous. Who cares how many citations it has? I think that people just want to know about the Arabian breed, not about how many citations you can smash into one article. Just cut though the red tape and ignore the ridiculous complainers. This is Wikipedia, not a college textbook. Dreamer 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


 * So, as to specifics:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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



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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Things we might need...
Looking at Thoroughbred, the only thing I see missing is something about the numbers of Arabians worldwide, the "Registration, breeding and population" section, which should probably go into the "Modern breeding" section. I'll try to do a copy-edit pass later today, and maybe find data on numbers, if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A long time back someone wanted stats on how the US has the most Arabians, followed by Australia, etc...I couldn't find a good list at the time so had to cut a few statements, so boy, if you can find data, that would be cool! Thanks!   Montanabw (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Okies. And your source is better, wasn't sure if it contained the rareness info or just the myth.  But if it says black is rare, for whatever reason, it will do.  I wonder if we just crunched numbers from datasource would that constitute original research?   Montanabw (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr...what do you mean by "datasource"? Can you link it? Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Datasource and yes, it would be OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


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

Size
Light riding horses such as Arabians, Morgans, or Quarter Horses usually range in height from 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 in/140 to 160 cm) and can weigh from 850 to 1,200 pounds (390 to 540 kg). But there is nothing wrong whith that, it does not make the horse less valuable. Arabians are great horses.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bluee, the Arabian breed registry standard as propounded by both the AHA and the USEF is "14.1 to 15.1 hands, with an occasional individual over or under. That is the most credible source on the issue and what is used in the article.  And that IS actually what Arabians are. (Sure, there are a lot of "15.2" Arabs advertised, but put a stick to them and they are 14.3!! LOL!!!)  And I do personally agree with you, height doesn't matter.  In some cases, a smaller horse is actually going to be more sound than one bred for size without considering soundness.  So please just leave the size section alone.   Montanabw (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Be serious. This is a fact, arabs are small and light horses. Why disguise it in a lot of other words? Does this make you feel unconfortable in some way, making the information clear and easy to read? When people start reading the Size section of the article sooner or later will realize this. It is in the article:

Thus, all Arabians, regardless of height, are classified as "horses," even though 14.2 hands (58 inches (150 cm)) is the traditional cutoff height between a horse and a pony.[12] A common myth is that Arabians are not strong because of their size

the first citation is from Wikipedia too.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bluee, I am not clear what your concern is. This article has passed two GA reviews by neutral reviewers, the article is heavily footnoted, and while there is always a place for improvement, adding unnecessary adjectives to an article as long as this one is not a good idea.  "Small and light" is as relative as saying "big and heavy" to describe draft horses, both are unnecessary verbiage and it is more neutral and encyclopedic to simply provide the size and weight standard for the breed without further commentary.  The 14.1 to 15.1 classification is the breed registry standard, and the classification as "horses," regardless as size, is also true of Morgans, Quarter Horses, Icelandics, and a number of other breeds.  (Similarly, "Polo ponies" can be 16-hand Thoroughbreds!)  As you say, people can figure out what this means for themselves.  Montanabw (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this should be an informative text for people who are not familiar with the topic like yourself, people without formal training, amateurs or children. Why should those people need to do detective work to figure out things? And their size, if compared with all the other horse breeds is small and ligt - among all horses. There is nothing wrong with this sentence you keep removing from the begining of the size section:

"Arabians are in general light and small horses "

Bluee Mountain (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that your source doesn't go to an article, and thus fails WP:V, we need to keep NPOV and thus avoid a relative value judgment (most ponies are much smaller and lighter than Arabians), it will start an edit war with every owner of an Arabian that stands over 15.1 hh, who will promptly start screaming, "my horses ARE NOT small and light!" Just the same result as if we said "Warmbloods are big and heavy horses."  The warmblood people would start screaming about how light in the bridle and agile their warmbloods are.  Relative terms do contain inherent value judgments within them and this creates edit wars.  But if other editors of this article want to weigh in, probably best the two of us just call it a draw for now.  Montanabw (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As one of the other main editors of the article, I agree with Montana. "Small and light" is a value judgment, and a comparison that does not always hold true.  We had trouble when we took the Haflinger (horse) article to GA status because we said that the Haflinger was a small horse - the reviewer wanted to know in comparison to what.  Also, the source that you cite goes to a free online encyclopedia.  It is generally considered bad form to cite information to other encyclopedias, and since we are working (albeit slowly) to get this article to FA, all new references that are put in need to be of the highest quality. Dana boomer (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Best regards

Bluee Mountain (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have, once again, corrected the conversion from hands high to centimeters since the numbers given were totally wrong. 14.1-15.1 hh equals 145-155 cm not 140-150 cm and the cut off height between ponies and horses, 14.2 hh, is 148 cm not 150 cm. I hope that this time user:Montanabw will keep his hands off the changes. Or better still fix the converter since it seems like the same f* up conversion has been used for all horse breeds on Wikipedia... Allan Akbar (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The template has to be fixed. We aren't going to go through 500 articles to manually convert them.  I don't know how to do complex syntax and fix the templates, and I do not appreciate the personal nature of your attack. (by the way, note No personal attacks I DID leave a message on the convert template talk page, they are sort of blowing me off, so if you want to go over there and talk to them, be my guest.  I DO agree that this needs to be fixed.   Montanabw (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And ...
In further prep work for an eventual FAC run, I've tagged the iffy sources, and done some ref cleanup here. LOTS of pages needed... (hint, hint, Montana...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can get around to the page refs, I confess they are all mine. And I've been very bad.  (What, two years???  Yeah, I suck!  LOL!)   However, I am really wondering about some of your tagging of "iffy" sources -- what is needed to un-iffy-fy them? And why so iffy? For example, I am puzzled about the problem with Homer Davenport.  Who is more of the expert on who he went to the Middle east with than the man himself?  Or, Lady Wentworth.  There was a lawsuit, she discusses it in her book.  I can verify from other sources, but they are all web sites.  Or, for example, what's the matter with Frank Dobie?  It's a source, and an old one. Is it the material itself that is in question, or only the source?   Some things, like the Saudi Aramco World and Delta Airlines stuff, may not be a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but there aren't any for the sort of info they are discussing.  The travel magazine does prove that there is a big horse show in France, that's the point.  Saudi Aramco World was actually a decent source on Middle East info, even if a trade magazine.  And they DO verify the info and so unless you also think the info is dodgy, I'm just curious if there's some overkill here.


 * In short, I am afraid we are making perfect the enemy of the good. I'm open to discussion, of course.  I can be mollified with a good explanation.


 * That said, while I DO value improving this article, quite frankly, given the horribly stupid things that FA review asks of the horse articles, I don't really ever want to take this article to FA. GA is good enough. As far as I am concerned, the whole process of getting Throughbred to FA was a nightmare.  Banker horse was a challenge, and had I been lead editor, I would have given up in despair, so good thing I was only coaching there.  Any long, complex article is a nightmare to get to FA.  (I can just see the "this article is too long so lets break it into five stupid little articles" thing already)  .There is a lot of valuable material in here that FA review will just force us to remove because we can't find the 1980 original copy of Arabian Horse World where the factoid came from even though WIW farm copied it verbatim. Or someone won't believe that Ronteza won at the cow palace because the source is the Varian site.  FA seems to work best for smaller, less complex articles, or some survey articles.  (I guess I might be ready to try it again with horse, but GA was tough enough there. And after what happened with the derailing of the article improvement for HIW, I'm actually totally disillusioned with the whole GA/FA process, I think it's a place for mental midgets to move in and destroy articles.  Sorry that I'm ranting, but the battle scars ache as the weather gets cooler...   Montanabw (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heads-up: as of a 2 September snapshot, this article had more cleanup categories assigned to it than any other GA article. Appreciate this is because you were looking to go for an FAC run by identifying iffy sources. Recommend some cleanup is done asap otherwise someone might come along and put it up for GA reassessment, Tom B (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that a lot of these are for page numbers alone, nothing else. I'll try to get on this pretty soon (hint, hint Montana... page numbers!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I whacked away on this for a while this afternoon. Got rid of most of the unreliable stuff, one way or another. Still a bunch of page needed tags and some places where citations are needed. But looking much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wentworth and Upton appear to be the only books where I need to add page numbers, yes? (I added everything from GBE way back when).  I just need to remember to get those two out BEFORE I settle in with the laptop and go online... Yes, just smack me and keep smacking me until I do this. Squeaky wheel and all.  Montanabw (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue List/Blue Star....
I've removed the information on this grouping because one of the sources has gone dead and the other is somewhat iffy. Also, I can't think of the last time I saw someone seriously discuss this sort of grouping (even the iffy source says that the BL/BS stuff was discontinued in the 1970s). We might want to discuss CMK/Korona/Pyramid here though. Those organizations are going strong. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two different things going on here. The context was more of a "what is a 'real' Arabian thing."  Al Khamsa and all.  I've actually been deliberately trying to avoid CMK/Korona/Pyramid, other than the most broad statements about bloodline groups because that's mostly commercial garbage -- and once we start mentioning them (especially CMK which is sort of one man's show, he's copyrighted the term and has his own club, IMHO)   then we also have to add Spanish, Asil Society (Europe), the Saudi stuff, Davenport preservation breeding, probably the Sabino breeders will want to jump in and I swear to god it will never end.  That said, I'm open to further discussion about what should or should not be included.   Montanabw (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not set on adding the others, but the Blue Star/Blue List stuff is pretty much dead on the vine any more (no organization or anything like that) so we're probably better of speaking of Asil and Al Khamsa and leaving all the others as "Besides these big groups, there are many other groups devoted to specific bloodlines...". My understanding is that Asil is close to the AK for Europe, which makes it big enough to mention without being too specific. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Yeah, tossing is fine with me then.  We are basically looking at the definition of an "Arabian," in this section, from broadest to most restrictive.  The Asil/AK definitions would be the most restrictive ones currently, then.  Yes, Asil is the AK for Europe, more or less. Go for it.   The bloodline group stuff is sort of scattered elsewhere in the article, and deliberately so.  (for one thing, the USA-bias of getting into the definitions would be a nightmare all by itself)    Montanabw (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cull a few pics...
Let's cull out a few of the pics, I suggest the following be cut out:

The Coronado one doesn't show anything specifically Arabianish, nor does the chariot one. The Washington one is better, but there are a lot of historical images. Likewise the Darley one. The Rifala one, there are two better shots there for the section (the costume and the jadaan shot). It'd be nice to find a saddle seat or endurance shot for that section.


 * I don't think the article is excessively image-heavy, but I agree with a few of your nominees. Things won't be crowded if we shrink them back down.  Coronado, OK.  Darley -- keep, he's extremely significant.  Hittite:  Wish we had a better one, but I think one ancient oriental horse image should stay.  George Washington, keep,  The person riding the gray mare, dump, I don't know where that one came from and it's pretty generic.

I'll try to find some more "showing" related ones or some to fill in other spots. Maybe we can move the anatomical one up higher? Right now the pics are pretty clumpy, not spread out very well. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a decent hunt seat horse; we wound up losing both of the hunter ones (the jumping one was fair use, not free). I think it best to show the animal as an athlete and not a flaky saddle seat thing, IMHO (much as I dearly loved my old saddle seat mare, not many people ride saddle seat) The performance images will be best if they contradict the myth of Arabs as dingbats.  Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it helped to blow everything up large (looks bad on my computer screen, large, out of proportion and bulky) I agree with clumping, the problem is having the photos associated with relevant text.  I'm up for help, there, though.  And nice alt text. Montanabw (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See, on my screen, the images were so small, they were lost and unviewable. Recently the MOS has gotten away from the "everything has to be default thumb size" and is now allowing us to show pics at a bigger size so you can actually SEE them without clicking on them. I just padded them 50% or so, some can be tweaked down smaller if need be, just adjust the ratio, but lets not go back to the default size because those are too small for any decent sized monitor. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tweaked just the ones that looked weirdly huge in relation to the others. That might help.  My laptop screen is so small everything is dinky (and this is why I have so many typos, can't see half of what's on here. Must. get. better. glasses)   Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested replacements:


 * Exchange File:Gatsby.jpg with  File:Cavalo Arabe REFON.jpg. I like the second one because it is a bigger, sharper pic while still showing dish, croup and tail carriage.
 * No, that image was in there, and I deliberately trashed it. Greased-up yearling with bad conformation.  EWWW! Icky!  Gatsby shot is a far more dynamic image of a real good horse.  And European so worldwide focus


 * File:Arabian horse skeleton.jpg with File:JKRUK 20080813 KWESTURA OO KLACZ DSC07539.jpg. The skeleton doesn't really show much other than that Arabians have skeletons... (duh!) and this is a better image of flashy movement.
 * The chestnut isn't an improvement on the gray and it's blurry. The skeleton is educational, shows the five lumbar vertebrae thing. Highly relevant.
 * Does it show the five vertebrae? If it does, it should be mentioned in the caption, right now it's just "Arabian skeleton" without much reason why it's there. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweaked caption to indicate relevance. (Feel free to refine wording).  Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Chamal2005body.JPG with File:Soviet Union-1968-stamp-Horse-6K.jpg. The current pic doesn't really add much to the "modern" breeding section. Another option would be File:Marbach Laufstall.jpg which is a modern scene at a famous stud.
 * I like the stamp. The grey stud is European and a nice animal and throwing a bone to the straight Egyptian crowd, but I'm not attached to it.  I don't like the shot of the skinny, ill-groomed mares at all.  I could handle either the stamp or keeping the stud.  \\
 * Let's go with the stud and remove the stud. It's not that he's not a nice animal, but the position doesn't show him well at all (not to mention tying him to a brick wall on concrete! Eeeewww! What if he freaked and started pulling? He could slip and slide... bad practice that..) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stamp in, stud out.  Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We could move the Darley shot down to "influence on other breeds" section. Other options would be File:National Show Horse.jpg, File:Maestoso Basowizza & Oberbereiter Hausberger.jpg, File:Dressage-shagya.JPG, or File:Percheron4.jpg.
 * Darley was a purebred, that's why he's here. Maybe he could be moved if it makes the article look better. I have issues with having horses of other breeds pictured. But that NSH Image should go into the NSH article, for sure!
 * Let's move the Darley to the influence section then, since he's mainly known for his influence on other breeds. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done!  Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Verlat-cheval.jpg is another option for somewhere. Maybe the Desert roots section?
 * It's cool, I agree. Nice if you can find a home for it.
 * I moved the other desert horse painting up a bit, and put the Raswan photo in the desert roots area. Will that work?

Just some suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope I'm not being too much of a butthead about the suggestions. This article is soooo close to where it needs to be that I don't want to derail a vary carefully crafted balance.  I'm personally happy with it as a GA, and I don't want to dumb it down and remove solid content just to pass FA.  TB got there, but this one will be harder to get to FA than TB was, I think.  Part of me wants to let sleping dogs lie...  Montanabw (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * whether or not we take the article to FA, we still need to do periodic maitenence/replace pics with newer/better ones, make sure all the links work, etc. You'll note that I've not done much tweaking on the prose, just citation cleanup etc. I don't really think it needs that much prose work, but I'd be happy to let Malleus play with it at some point. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 'fair nuff. Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and page numbers??? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will try to pop in a few tonight. Often edit wiki away from home & the books, but home at the moment.   Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I added ages for Upton, Lady Wentworth will get in eventually. Thought: Want to toss that red anatomical drawing? To me THAT is the thing that isn't about Arabians, it's about Islamic veterinary medicine. (Arabians don't have particularly unique innards...) It would then make room for the other images to flow better too. Thoughts?? Montanabw (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that could go. Maybe we can find a nice medieval islamic illustration of a battle/horse? That'd fit better, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, I think the Battle of Higueruela painting works as one battle image involving Muslim warriors, so I'm happy as is (plus we have the incomplete desert horse painting and the Raswan image for desert images). I like that one other painting of Arab people you found, but not sure where a home for it would be... But I was also wondering what you'd think of dumping either King Wilhelm or Eustachy Sanguszko  so as not to have two images of European nobility and in doing so, bring Lady Ann's image back up to her section where it belongs?  (One problem with growing the images was that on my machine, they push each other out of the sections they were spposed to illustrate...)  There is a decent arguing to keeping either or both (I think I added both of them, actually) but of the two, the horse Sanguszko is on is cooler-looking, and a bay to boot (the article is top-heavy with grays, IMHO).  OTOH, King Wilhelm was, well, a king.   Montanabw (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nix the king. His horse is doing that weird rocking horse look with his legs which isn't a true gait. Drives me batty in pics (may be that is one reason I've never been fond of the Stubbs horse portraits...). Hm.. maybe on some Islamic textile they did a horse embroidery? That might be cool...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great minds. The king shall be gone. Feel free to dig around to see if there's something spectacularly cool out there.  Now are you sitting down?  I got out Lady Wentworth and am sourcing page numbers!  (It's OK, deep breaths, breath slowly into that paper bag...)   350 pages that I didn't cite by page # at the time.  Thank god she has a magnificent index, though it's sometimes a good novel in itself: "Blunt, Lady Anne&mdash; achievements, 72, 302; as Arabic scholar, 73, 79; banished by her husband,76, 78; books on Arabs and the Arabian horse, 28, 79; breeder of Arab horses, 69-80, 302,303; captivating personality, 70, 71,78; character, 70-3..." etc. compare to: "Blunt, Wilfrid Scawen&mdash; agitator, 73: and iconosclast, 77; alienates his properties, 77, 80-5; alarms his friends, 76; autocrat, 76; banishes Lady Ann, 76,78; blown up by his own dynamite, 77; champion of  lost causes, 74;..."  You get the picture,  And if someone thinks their family is dysfuncational!  LOL!   Indexing  on the Blunts alone goes on for almost two pages.   Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff
What do you think of this photo to add: File:VientoDeWashoe-2006USSportHorseNatChHunterHack (887391113).jpg. I can fault it (overbent, on the forehand, tail braid too stiffetc.) but award photos are often not the epitome of how well the horse actually did in the class. I'm also concerned that in spite of the license, it may actually be copyrighted by the photographer. But, we were looking for "show" images. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's Don Stine wbsite here who took the picture, by the copyright mark. Somehow that doesn't match up with the person claiming ownership, does it? I'll drop this one onto an image guru's lap. In fact, if you check, Flickr has deleted the photo, so I wouldn't support using it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Probably the uploader to Flickr didn't understand the licensing.  It happens.   Montanabw (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More stuff: I have Archer and can add pages, but I don' have the book used as a source for the bit on Syria. Not sure where that came from (your collection, maybe??) Montanabw (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not mine. I think it was a drive by, honestly. Dana? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana has appies! LOL! I vote for the drive-by.  Wonder if it will pop up in Google books.  Of course, it's also a little outdated, because the web source I used predated the admission of the Syria stud book into WAHO (I think that occurred in 2007?), so apparently they solved the stubborn old tribesmen problem....or not. By the way, I added page # for Archer, which, by the way is incredibly excellent for a number of things, including the Blunt bloodlines that went back to Egypt...our so-called "Straight Egyptians."  LOL!  Montanabw (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

random stuff
I put that stuff about the bay and buckskins in there because there has been many mix-ups in the past. Especially with Thee Infidel. I have 5 Arabians and am on lots of forums and people ask about that a lot. im kinda new to wikipedia so I wasnt sure how to put recourses, but im pretty good with computers, hehe, so when i figure that out ill be glad to put one in there. i just know that it would clear a lot of stuff up with Arab newbies to have that in there. Sure bays and buckskins are very different, but not to horse newbies and I thought this was to teach people about the breed in an easy to understand way, not just a way to show off to other experts who already know all that stuff. well, since im new i know i dont count, but just thought Id put in my two cents. btw - ARABS ROCK!!! Dreamer 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source that says that bay and buckskins are confused, it would be better placed in the articles on those colors, as it would not be a specific Arabian breed issue. Frankly, you're going to need a pretty good source for that, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I reread what I wrote, and I realized that i definitely could have worded it better, im sorry for that. as soon as i figure out the resources I'll post one on here. Dreamer 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)


 * Eh, had an edit conflict with Ealdgyth. Here's my version: Thank you for your comments. Everyone's opinions are important here, so please don't feel that you "don't count". The main issue with this article is that it's already bloated beyond Wikipedia's size guidelines, and so we need to cut down on information generic to all horses, instead of just this breed. Another concern is that registries don't recognize buckskin as existing in purebred Arabians (which we imply in the article, although do not directly state, because it would take up a lot of room to list all of the colors that don't exist in Arabs), and so having a section on how buckskin and bay are different isn't really on topic here since no Arab is actually buckskin. Another concern is that "most people think"- and "some people confuse"-type comments are really hard to source to reliable sources, and since this article is very slowly being moved in the direction of featured article status, only reliable sources should be added to the article. Just look at all of the tags already on the article questioning sources that are going to need to be removed before we nominate the article for FA candidacy! I hope this explanation helps somewhat. Just because newbies sometimes get confused doesn't mean we need to incorporate the information into an already bloated article, especially when we can't find reliable sources for that information - that's the general idea of it! Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia in fact strongly encourages high quality citation to reliable sources, especially for "good article" -rank, so we do have to provide a lot of footnotes.  If you read the article a bit further, you will see that the color section talks about colors that do not exist in Arabians with a link to the appropriate color articles for those who want to learn more about color.  As for the rest, Thee Infidel is a classic bright  "blood bay" and is just as bay as bay can be!  Anyone who is confused about his color must be new to horses, not just Arabians, and simply not know their coat colors at all!  Arabians NEVER carry the cream dilution, thus a buckskin purebred Arabian is a genetic impossibility.  The lightest bays are still distinctly red, not gold.  I do admit that when body-clipped, some blood bays have that two-toned hair shaft and may momentarily look sort of a weird tan for a couple days after a close shave, but I can't find a photo of Thee Infidel on his website or in a google image search that looks that way.   Bless you Taylor, but I hope you are setting people straight over on all your forums.  You my also want to read cream gene here.  As for wikipedia, we do welcome your comments, but this particular article has two editors who have considerable personal expertise with Arabian horses as well as a number of other horse editors with strong equestrian backgrounds who also contribute and help keep us on the right track.  If you want an easy reader article, go to Simple Wikipedia, where they have a version for people with limited English reading skills.  Montanabw (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

the tail being that high
do they do something to make there tail higher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.196.145 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's possible to do something like that, like they do with Saddlebreds and stuff, but I'd say with Arabians there's no much reason for tricks. The high tail connection contributes, and the Arabians simply seem to roll that high-flagging way. I'm not an expert on this matter however, and don't know anything about American or European showing trends or regulations for instance. Pitke (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The breed naturally has high tail carriage. To the best of my knowledge, the images in this article all show animals with natural tails, or at least they appear to be natural and ungingered.  The tail is higher when in motion, as in the trotting horse photo, though at a standstill it can still be raised if the animal is animated, nervous or excited.  (For photos, people often are doing things off camera like waving plastic bags or something to get the horse a little hyped up for  the photo.  With stallions, sometimes a mare is being held just off camera...)  That said, a few people break the rules and add ginger to tails to get even higher tail carriage, but it is usually obvious when it's done, because the horses hold their tails funny.  See  tail (horse) for additional info on natural and artificial tail carriage.  Montanabw (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And if anyone wants to compare a blatently gingered tail to a natural tail, here's a good photo showing what it looks like: (the guy got suspended for gingering!) horse closest to camera appears gingered, the others do not appear gingered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)