Talk:Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century

Don't adjust the list
The article exists "as is" regardless if you disagree! The "100" rankings reflects what was determined by the sportswriters and historians at the time. As a published resource there is no room for debate under this specific topic (Blood-Horse Magazine's List) to adjust a name or position here and there. Can you disagree? Sure, but keep it to yourself as this isn't a pub to voice opinion.

It gets silly for all the Secretariat fans to waltz in and think it is of any value (or even humor) to slip in a change from 2nd to 1st. At the end of the day any changes made is considered vandalism and you may be subject to censure or banned from wikipedia. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for page protection
I have submitted to have the page protected to try and disuade the anonymous IP user to return to the discussion page. The user from the ISP Verizon Internet Services has consistently put Secretariat at the top of the list without explanation six times in the last four days. Unfortunately the request has been declined for now.imars (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See Request for Protection.


 * I noticed after fixing the 8th revert since June 17, that the anonymous IP user has been editing the Man o' War article, too.imars (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the 9th revert to this article and the Man o' War article. This time I made the change within 15 minutes of the anonymous editpr. Because the anonymous user is assigned a new IP address every time he or she logs on, I doubt that the user has seen any of my warnings. Maybe this time I got lucky.imars (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I am trying a different tact. I am adding the disclaimer espoused by Ms. Nunes previously in the Talk page. This casts a different light on the list. However, the quote needs a source!imars (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave the list as is as long as the quote stays up as is. I have worked in horse racing for over forty years. No sane human being could rank Secretariat 14th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.5.196 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thanks for coming back to the talk page! This is certainly an easier way to hold a conversation than trying to catch an IP address that changes daily. ;-)


 * I am glad you find the compromise acceptable. The quote adds an important aspect to the article. The list is what it is, and we can no more change it than we can change who won American Idol or the last election. We do have one small problem though, as the article stands, someone wishing to research this topic has no where to go to confirm the statement by Mr. Nack. Can you provide a source for the quote? Newspaper, magazine, book, television interview? What we have right now is heresay and since I presume Mr. Nack is still living, he would be justified in being upset if he is misquoted. So, our work is not done yet. Can you help?


 * Oh, think about getting a user. It does make this kind of discussion easier. See WP:WHY. imars (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Previously blanked content
I am returning content possibly posted by the IP user who is editing the list with the hopes of starting a discussion. imars (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY reason Man O'War finished ahead of Secretariat is because one of the seven "experts" didn't even rank him in the top ten.

This is what panelist Bill Nack had to say about the ranking:

--There is some new information from author Bill Nack regarding the outcome of why Man'OWar was selected #1 in the The Blood-Horse poll. Mr. Nack was asked recently why Man'OWar was voted ahead of Secretariat for Horse of the Century, and Mr. Nack replied "I spent two days on the project. The final results were skewered when, I am told, one of the judges put Secretariat fourteenth on his top-100 list. I don't know who this particular voter was---individual voting has remained a secret on that panel---but it was an idiotic judgment that should have been dismissed out of hand. Had I known any voter would do such a thing, I'd have put Man o' War in fourteenth place just to counterbalance the loony. That would have leveled the playing field. Here was a horse who had broken three track records in all three Triple Crown races, including the controversial Preakness clocking, two of which records (Derby and Belmont) still stand today; whose 31-length Belmont Stakes victory, in which he earned a Beyer of 137, is by consensus regarded as the greatest performance by a racehorse in history; and yet here was a voter who concocted a list suggesting that Secretariat would have finished last, behind 13 horses, in a field made up of that voter's first 14 horses on the list. It warped the voting and thereby tainted the list."--

No informed racing fan takes this list seriously when somebody does something that dumb. You are NOT an "expert" if you discount Secretariat's rather overwhelming achievements.--Susan Nunes

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blood-Horse_magazine_List_of_the_Top_100_U.S._Racehorses_of_the_20th_Century"

The Bloodhorse panel member who placed Secretariat at No.14 holds no devilish responsibility for Secretariat not being placed at No 1 in the poll. He voted Citation No.1 and Man O' War (MOW) as No. 2. Had he awarded Secretariat the No. 3 position (instead of No. 14) MOW would still have accumulated a greater number of weighted winning votes and remained in the No. 1 position.

As for comments alleged to Mr. Nack, it is submitted that ethics should have persuaded that he recuse himself from the panel. The pecuniary royalties he has received from his acclaimed book about Secretariat creates a prima facie suspicion of impaired objectivity. The alleged statement that had he known of a panel member's vote which placed Secretariat at No. 14, he would have put MOW in 14th place, fosters a clear suspicion of his being in a seriously conflicted role as a self-anointed guardian. If such indeed be his view, why not simply have demanded the majority composition of panel members to be comprised of self-proclaimed Secretariat banner-carriers and be done with it.

Parenthetically: 100 (not just 7) journalists and others from within the American racing community participated in the Thoroughbred & Harness Racing Action 1988 "100 Greatest" poll, with MOW, Secretariat, Citation and Kelso finishing 1,2,3,4. In the tally, MOW finished comfortably ahead of Secretariat. However, among the vote results, MOW received 2 - 10th place votes; 2 - 15th place; 1 - 16th place. Secretariat received 1 - 10th place vote; 1 - 12th place; 1 - 16th place; 1 - 19th place. [User: Go For Wand Fan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go For Wand Fan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nack quotes
I'm curious to know how Sports Illustrated's William Nack speaking to the New York Daily News (7th-highest circulation in the U.S.) fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy.108.27.220.251 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it is one persons opinion. Please see WP:UNDUE for the fact that one opinion not liking the list is barely notable. Where is the info from those who felt the methodology for compiling the list was sound. Next see WP:RECENTISM it is natural that an opinion from someone who saw Secretariat but did not see Man 'o War would have a skewed POV. Also see WP:BRD you were bold and entered the POV item. It was then reverted now discussion must occur before reentry. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very happy to discuss this, while keeping in mind that WP:BRD "is not a process that you can require other editors to follow," and "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Your original objection (June 30, July 10, August 12) was that the info was posted without sourcing.  With that concern addressed, you are now citing different Wiki guidelines that, I believe, do not apply here.  WP:UNDUE states that Wikipedia describes disputes, without engaging in them.  The text in question accomplishes this.
 * If William Nack had been 1 of 200 voters, he might be considered a "tiny majority"; as 1 of 7, that aspect of UNDUE does not appear to apply, particularly since the list would not exist in its current form without Nack's central participation in its compilation. Many Wikipedia pages (e.g. Academy Awards, Nobel Prizes) include negative opinions belonging to members of those same organizations, without running afoul of POV issues.
 * Perhaps you can explain how Nack's opinion about the top 100 horses has been deemed notable enough to be part of a publicized list and a Wikipedia page about it, yet his thoughts about the formulation of that list are simultaneously invalid. Given your WP:RECENTISM reference, you might also explain how Nack and the other six voters were able to compile the list at all, including Man O'War and earlier horses, despite not being over 100 years old.
 * Naturally, you are free to find and source info from those who felt the methodology was sound, and I hope that you will do so. Anything that can further contextualize this topic would provide added value to the Wikipedia community.108.27.220.251 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit history shows that you've made at least six separate Wikipedia sign-ins since I posted the above, but you haven't replied here. Has the discussion concluded?108.27.220.251 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Three more editing visits, so it apparently has. I'm restoring the text.  If you have any additional questions or comments, leave them here.108.27.220.251 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a thought. Doesn't the fact that Nack partly built his career on Secretariat make him a little suspect? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The New York newspapers story points out the fact that Nack has written a biography of Secretariat which brings into question his objectivity in the situation. This fact does bring WP:UNDUE into play and the info does not belong in this article until the opinion of others can be brought in to bring balance to the observations of this list. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:UNDUE does not apply, for the reasons already discussed in this section of the Talk page. In fact, the minority opinion would be the one voter who in Nack's view "skewed" the result.  William Nack qualifies as a reliable source, a verifiable source, and a prominent adherent (he's one of the 7 voters!).  Nack's view is "clearly identified and explained" in the context of the article, and is "summarize[d] and presente[d] in an impartial tone."
 * Your extrapolation of Nack's Secretariat book and its role in his criticism violates both WP:OR and WP:POV... that is, unless you can find a prominent and reliable source for that view. I urge you to do so.108.27.220.251 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope you are wrong. Unless you can find comments from the other contributors to the list, Nack's comments should not be given undue prominence.  Tigerboy1966   21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:POV is all Nack's. As to WP:OR that applies to items included not those excluded. Nack's views can also be considered self published which makes using it even more WP:UNDUE. Until views of others can be found - whether they agree or disagree with him - the item does not merit inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines here, as there are numerous counterexamples on many Wikipages. Nonetheless, I have complied with your stated wishes, per the Associated Press and the managing editor of Blood-Horse magazine.108.27.220.251 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No you are misinterpreting guidelines. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS whenever you want to use the term counterexamples (aside for the fact that you didn't provide any. On the other hand thanks for the extra research. MarnetteD | Talk 04:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Title?
The link to the text of the book makes it clear that the title of the book did not include the words U.S. It was "The Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century."

The fact that non U.S. horses were almost completely ignored is therefore more of a credibility problem than the current page title would suggest. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a little balance?
I understand this article is promoting a particular magazine and book published by the magazine, but some people may get the mistaken impression this listing is agreed on by horse-racing historians. The article includes some balance by including the quote by Nack and that's good. The wikipedia article on Secretariat includes this statement: "ESPN listed him 35th of the 100 greatest athletes of the 20th century, the highest of three non-humans on the list (the other two were also racehorses: Man o' War at 84th and Citation at 97th )." Most readers will readily see that ESPN regards Secretariat as the best horse of the 20th century, by a large margin. What do you think? RonCram (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that if ESPN thinks that the three best horses of the century were all trained in the USA we needn't pay too much attention to them or their list. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Title
The list was titled "Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century", without the "US" qualification. Of course the real title makes the list look ridiculous and parochial (Davona Dale was a better horse than Brigadier Gerard, apparently), but I don't think we should be protecting the reputation of a magazine.  Tigerboy1966  20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually part of a wider problem on wp. A lot of editors, editing in good faith, have a habit of writing about "horses racing" and "racehorses" when then mean something like "(North) American horse racing" and "racehorses trained in the United States". It's an understandable error (and I bet you could find plenty of similar examples in my contributions on British horse racing) but it's not a tendency which should be encouraged.  Tigerboy1966   07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I hated doing this, as its so obviously the core of the article, but we cannot have the complete list as compiled by a subjective set of criteria, as that list is itself protected by copyright. we can mention the #1 horse, and of course mention this rating in the articles on the horses, but cannot reproduce the whole list. i learned this the hard way from an article i wrote of a "100 best" which had to hve the list removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please identify the parts of the article which breach specific guidelines.  Tigerboy1966  18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the policy is about copying such a list, but I suppose it would be a good idea to find out – so I have added the appropriate template to the article and listed the page at Copyright problems/2014 June 9. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The remainder of the article seems fine, if we have a link to the actual list, that would suffice if the whole thing can't be copied here.  Montanabw (talk)  05:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have any idea how long the response time is for getting an answer to your post? If not no worries. I noticed this today. I know that it does not affect this situation but I wonder if it might down the road. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that most such inquiries close about one week after submission, but I've never gone through the process before. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry for the delay. :) The official information is at WP:NFC - under "Unacceptable uses", see #4 and especially the footnote. There's an essay that offers further explanation about what kinds of lists are likely to be copyright protected and which not at Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * An excerpt of the ranking, i.e. the top 10, should be restored. This would clearly be permissible under fair use. --bender235 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For future reference
To editors looking at the edit history of this article please note that due to copyright violations you will not be able to access most of that history. If there is something specific that you need to know you can request admin assistance. has offered to help but other admins may be available as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * SO basically, we can't copy the list itself here, we can only talk about the list? But the article has a link to the actual list, so that's how anyone who really wants to know can access it. Correct?  (grin)   Montanabw (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Phar Lap
Although a great race horse, Phar Lap NEVER raced in the US!!!! He was scheduled to race but died in Mexico after winning a race there, before being shipped to the US! . Thus he was never even eligible for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1300:427F:7876:BE93:3DD0:747F (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * looks like this article has the wrong title. The actual title of the book is Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. It is a world wide list not just a US one. I will put a move of the article on my to-do list but anyone else who sees this is free to make the move. Thanks for catching this IP. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Consensus on the alternative proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century → Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century – or or  or. Per prior comments on the article Talk page in 2011 and 2019, the name of this "Top 100" doesn't include "U.S." We should also remove any other words that aren't really part of the name of the list. The list was first published in the magazine (see here: "The Top 100 list first appeared as a special issue of The Blood-Horse magazine, in February of 1999" and this article that says the poll result was published as a list and even republished by others – and that even included Wikipedia for a while) but I have not found a clear name for the list itself. An expanded publication was published as a book named Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century (e.g. ISBN 9781581500240 or ISBN 1-58150-024-6). The full name of the magazine appears to be The Blood-Horse (or to have been that historically, per the quote just above, although it is published by Blood-Horse LLC, without "The", and recent cover art seems to omit "The" and the hyphen as shown here, although those are still included in some text mentions such as at that link where it says "to renew your subscription to The Blood-Horse, without interruption, ...", although on the same page it says "ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION // TO BLOODHORSE MAGAZINE // TABLET AND ONLINE EDITION", without "The", without hyphen). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, mainly to accurately differentiate between any other polls and valid opinions due to the ridiculous rating of Secretariat because one of the very few "voters" purposely left him off of his top ten. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any other lists of top 100 racehorses of the 20th century that are discussed on Wikipedia? If not, then I don't see an ambiguity problem. Moreover, I suggested some alternative titles that include the publication's name if that is your concern. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the alternate names would do fine as long as it includes the name of the magazine. An article title of simply "top 100...", without the magazine's name, would certify in Wikipedia's voice (per title) that the list is accurate. The action of one person out of seven purposely and solely chose the number one and two horses. If he had listed Secretariat as one of the top ten then the horse would have been chosen number one, so his bias and act of not naming Secretariat as one of the top ten made the difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally the title of a published work is used (in title case) as the title of the Wikipedia article about it, without including the author or publisher name in the title (unless as a disambiguator if there is more than one published work discussed on Wikipedia with the same title). This is typically done without regard to the accuracy of the title, as with The Greatest Canadian, "Best Song Ever", The Greatest Trade Ever, The Greatest Show on Turf, The Biggest Bundle of Them All, The Worst...Album in the World...Ever...EVER!, The Ugliest Woman in the World, 100 Best Australian Albums, 100 Best Companies to Work For, 100 Best Workplaces in Europe, The 100 Greatest Films of Argentine Cinema, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:SURPRISE - this isn't Wikipedia's list. Additionally, this should probably be merged as it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Per my talk page requesting more time about the use of "U.S." in the title Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Horse racing has been notified of this discussion. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ? (Removing "U.S." because that is unsourced and not accurate, and removing "List of the" since that isn't from the source either.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Favor this, reads and summarizes well. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.