Talk:Finnhorse/Archive 1

New pics from 2004
So I digged into my personal archives and found negatives of pictures taken in Vermo, late spring 2004. These are not all; I haven't scanned and published everything in Commons yet, but the unpublished ones don't add much information, being mostly generic "commonly chestnut Finnhorse trotters". Views on the usability of these shots? Pitke (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

See commons:User:Pitke/Lightbox. Pitke (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources of information
While I have found a source for Viitanen (2007), I have been unable to find anything for Hännikäinen (2001), in relation to the percentages of horse colourings (per hidden text in Colour selection section) apart from this photograph by Henna Hännikäinen (2007), who may be the same person. However, this is of no help, since the citation sought pertains to something written about the Finnhorse.

I should perhaps note that I was able to solve the Viitanen citation because (a) the error was explicit, meaning (b) anyone checking the references would notice it, thus (c) raising the likelihood of solution. This is important, because while it is possible to predict likely sources of solution (e.g. expert knowledge in, or of, a given body of knowledge), it is less possible to predict solution sources for any given problem.

Hence the need to allow for serendipitous solutions, which is best facilitated by the problem being out in the open. As readers will be aware, there are numerous examples of non-experts in given fields stumbling onto solutions. Sometimes because they didn't know they weren't "meant" to think in certain ways, or look in certain areas - like dinosaur fossils being found by amateurs in areas previously dismissed by paeleontologists, to name one example. People have said things like "I didn't know I wasn't meant to look there" etc. Sometimes this sort of thing annoys the experts, but not those truly dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, who are always delighted, even if they themselves were wrong.

However, the only reason I became aware that there is a Hännikäinen reference to look for, is because I happened to be editing in the section where it was mentioned in the hidden text. Now while that is serendipitous, it's obviously less amenable to solution than the Viitanen example, because it's not in the open for people to spot and think about. I think it would be better to create a section on the talk page where you can list missing sources, sources needing checking, or sources sought. That sort of thing. Just food for thought. Otherwise the article appears to be coming on well, but you already know that. Wotnow (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pitke is the person who handled all the Finnish sources, i was just doing cleanup and wordsmithing. I hear your point, but sometimes hidden text is good for keeping a problem OUT of the public eye while a particular editor works out a fix... there are good reasons both ways.  Either way, thank you for filling out the sourcing on the Viitanen book.  Montanabw (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Registry/stud book numbers etc.
I'll be keeping a little help list at User:Pitke/Suokkilyhenteet to keep myself and others straight with all these Finnish abbreviations and codes. Pitke (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins section
Hi Pitke, the new origins section is making my eyes water! (grin) The reason is that all these early theories fly in the face of what is known about modern CNA and the taxonomy of the horse in general. While it is certainly possible that horses originating in Mongolia may have come west with migrating humans, they could not be the Przewalski's horse, which was never domesticated and never left central Asia (except recently. to be put in zoos). Similarly, the question of whether the Tarpan (equus ferus ferus) was ever the ancestor of any domesticted horses is also dubious. (See Sorraia and Konik for discussion of possible Tarpan influence) Now, it is sure possible that in the 1800s and even the early 20th century scientists would not have known that, but I am concerned that we are spending a lot of time describing dubious theories that will just confuse people, we may want to summarize and shorten drastically. Check out the article wild horse, where the taxonomy question got thrashed around quite a bit. Montanabw (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tell you it was hard to keep doing things by the source... I was considering adding a "see also" but couldn't come up with anything good enough. Maybe the section should be renamed to reflect the fact these were *early* theories, and the section's ending could be fattened up with some general up-to-date information about what is known about the ancestors of modern horses. Don't we have an article to specifically sort out what people have thought about this thing, containing the ever-so-famous four prototypes theory (forest horse, "proto Arabian" and the two others)...? I keep missing it, I'd love to be able to link mouldy terminology there.Pitke (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll play with the language in the article to explain that they didn't know as much about taxonomy as they do now. See what you think.   We just did a major rewrite of the domestication sections in Horse and domestication of the horse.  Check it out there.   Looks like the four foundations theory of wild prototypes has bit the dust, as least, this decade.  What we thought were wild prototypes may have more likely been early landrace breeding, as clearly there were early horses adapted to different climates.  Bummer, as I was rather fond of it, but Y-chromosome studies now suggest that the entire domesticated horse genome may descend from very few stallions, maybe even just one, with some wild mares occasionally restocking the mix. KimvdLinde sort of slapped me about the head and shoulders until I was convinced (I was convinced, just took a while).  The other big debate out there is if there were multiple centers of original domestication or just one.  At the moment, there's not much proof of the multiple centers theory, though it hasn't exactly been disproven either.  Montanabw (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh pictures from last weekend
Some of these might be nice after cropping and some lighting level work. Pitke (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see horses in Finland, like those in Montana, are cautious about shedding out, even in April. Wise animals (we had snow here this weekend!  =:-O )   Montanabw (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're located in Yyteri, which might explain something... Any fav picks from these pics? I can't decide if I'd rather see the bay in the place of the current flaxen-maned jumper... Aw heck, yes I would. Pitke (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, File:Onni Yyteri Cupissa.jpg horse looks like it's having fun, if overjumping a bit. One issue for me is that most of the riders are ahead of the motion, which puts the horses on their forehands, which is probably why you see so many uneven forelegs; the critters are clearly game, but their riders are not well-balanced. For the Onni Yyteri Cupissa photo,  the rider's equitation faults aren't so visible and the horse is jumping safely. It would be my pick of the jumping shots, and can't hurt to have one non-chestnut Finnhorse in the article.   One of those in there, the horse is dropping one leg so far over the fence it looks like they are about to trip over the jump!  =:-O    File:Eemeli esteratsastuskilpailuissa.jpg is kind of cute, File:Harjoittelu - Yyteri Cup.jpg is a good clear jump, but the rider's position is scaring me... one refusal and they will flip head over teacup!   =:-O

See commons:User:Pitke/Lightbox. Pitke (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again more pictures; we have a foal! All the foal pictures are of nice quality too. commons:User:Pitke/Lightbox Pitke (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Eq. sport levels
So this source I'm using says these and those horses were level Easy B in dressage, eventing and show jumping. What would these be in anglohipponese? Details:


 * Dressage: includes extended walk, mid trot, mid canter, counter canter on serpentine way, leg-yield/half-pass, changing directly to trot from rein-back, changing from working canter/trot to mid canter/trot and vice versa
 * Show jumping: obstacles 100cm/3'33 high at most
 * Eventing: level is obsolete XC however, it should be about the same level as in dressage and show jumping, but unfortunately I don't know a whiff about competitive riding... Pitke (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably best to compare to the FEI rules where they exist .  What's frustrating is that USEF did away with general names for jumper divisions, so there is no 3'3" (1.00m) division, though ponies DO jump at that height.  Hence, though there are regionally-based terms ("novice" "green" etc...) there's no set national terminology.  If there isn't some equivalent in the UK Jumping rules, I think the safest way for you to go there is just state what the obstacle sizes are, and if there is a Finnish name that translates into English, use it.

However, the rules for "one star" events at FEI are here: I did a search for "one star" and got some useful tables and such. FEI has no rules for classes under 1.20m fences. They also don't seem to have the equivalent of the lower dressage levels, either, I think they start with Prix St. Georges.

The USA rules for the lower levels of eventing explain the levels here see page EV-41  I gotta say, good luck figuring those out! :-P The USEF dressage rules do contain a handy cross-ref to FEI and USEF eventing rules. The dressage rules are here but they are real vague as to specific movements, you sort of have to download and read the tests. IN the meantime, here's the USEF's handy (or not) table:
 * All FEI PonyRider and FEI Childrens Tests are equivalent to Second Level.
 * All FEI Junior Rider Tests are equivalent to Third Level.
 * All FEI Young Rider Tests are equivalent to PSG.
 * The FEI Four-Year-Old Test is equivalent to First Level.
 * The FEI Five-Year-Old Tests are equivalent to First Level
 * The FEI Six-Year-Old Tests are equivalent to Third Level.
 * Eventing Beginner Novice and Novice tests are equivalent to Training Level.
 * Eventing Training tests are equivalent to First Level.
 * Eventing Preliminary tests are equivalent to Second Level.
 * Eventing Intermediate tests are equivalent to Third Level.
 * Eventing Advanced tests are equivalent to Third Level.

Draught vs. Universal vs. Warmblood
I'm trying to put together a little collection of sources claiming this and that to compose a picture. Everyone is welcome to help. See my user subpage User:Pitke/Finnhorse type. Pitke (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And before anyone (coughmontanabwcough) gets too happy about the whole WP:OR thing, I'd like to state a disclaimer: this will only be a list of sources for future reference. Thanks. Pitke (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's in your sandbox, I only add smartass remarks to those! LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On "some" English sourcebooks
Ok, so I ran into this little piece of work. Peplow, Encyclopedia of the Horse. This is a cautionary example. So I think this article might actually already be better than some books out there. May I go and whack the editor in the head now before someone demands we use this book for sourcework? Pitke (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Finnish is the only officially recognised equine breed in Finland." - I kinda see where this came from, but it's a huge mistake still
 * "It is descended from two closely related breeds, the Finnish Draught and the Finnish Universal(...)" - same breed, different sections. Compare to Welsh Pony sections, or show versus non-show lines of the Arabian.
 * And the rest of the about five-sentence-long-section: "strong shoulders, good clean legs, good bone, lots of stamina, lives for ages." That's the official Finnhorse propaganda. I'm yet to meet a book that doesn't include these points.


 * I share that frustration. Every time I run into a book that still repeats the myth that "all" Arabians have only five lumbar vertebrae (some do, some don't, so does the Przewalski's horse.  So big whoop), I want to scream

By the way, I think any of the breed articles that have had serious work done on them to go GA or FA are vastly superior to what's out there in both books and on most breed web sites. By the way, you know you've arrived when you see the breed magazines plagiarizing wikipedia without attribution! LOL! (Saw example, will find again...)  Montanabw (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it already happening to something I wrote, it had something to do with Japanese pop culture and pornography too XD Pitke (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The warmblood thing might be an evil plot!
(Warmblood) refers to the sporty riding horse type, e.g. Hannoverian, Trakehner etc. originating from draft/Thoroughbred crosses; too bad English doesn't differentiate between these and the other warmbloods
 * no, those ARE the only kind of horses referred to in English as warmbloods now
 * so what are breeds like Peruvian Paso and Andalusian/PRE called?

When I was a kid, books talked about "hot bloods," meaning Arabians and Thoroughbreds, mostly, "cold bloods", meaning draft horses, and "warm bloods" meaning everything else. Sometime between the 60s and the 80s, "warmblood" became one word and started to refer only to the sport horse. I don't know how that happened and had I been consulted, I would have denounced it as silly. But, whenever something makes no sense in the English language and also cannot be explained historically, there are usually three possible explanations: 1)  Marketing and someone making money off of using a word a particular way (most common answer)  2) Politics (of all sorts) and 3) Americans (like me) being either a) too lazy to say things properly or b) insecure and trying to sound more sophisticated.  Here, I think the shift was a combination of (1) and (3 a&b) LOL!  I mean, can you REALLY tell apart an Oldenburger, a Hanoverian and a Westphalian?  I can't!  So we call Andalusians, Friesians, and the like "Baroque horses." The Pasos, Morgans, Quarter Horses, etc... are just called any mishmash of terms, such as "light riding horse" or "saddle horse" or whatever.  I think it's a plot... **(twilight zone music plays here)**  Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so trying to use the talk page
Pitke, As you tune up this article for GA review, the one concern I am starting to have is that there may be some redundancy, for example, material in the draft section may be restated, with minor variations, in (for example) the agricultural uses and/or history sections. My own eyes have probably been on this article too long to be good at spotting this sort of thing. What I can do is chop excess wordiness at the paragraph and subsection level, but it might be time to think about whether certain materials need to be consolidated into one section or another... one trick I discovered is to go to that new wiki-book publishing section where you can save a wikipedia article (or a group of them) as a downloadable pdf file, which is easy to print out, scatter all over the floor, and literally cut, paste (or tape) and rearrange. Just a thought. Montanabw (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I get where all the "should be" subsections exists, I'm better able to move older, badly-placed stuff to where it would best be placed. No worries, this is on a mental sticky note :) Pitke (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I caught some of it during my run-through, note changes. At this point, if I screw up something, just send a trout slap at me, I'm learning more about Finnish history than I ever imagined, it's quite interesting.  (No one outside Finland really understands the WWII thing, for example, the linked articles were fascinating!   Montanabw (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Answers for questions (so I don't have to edit multiple sections just to comment)
Achievements from riding, driving, harness racing, and workhorse competitions are accepted.
 * I've understood it this way: in harness racing, a certain time limit must be met. I have NO idea what it might be... 1:32 is the absolute limit that will qualify a Finnhorse for racing - go under it and you're in no matter what. Otherwise the horse must do better than 1:45 if he's unraced and five or older; raced horses must* Winnings might have some weight, as they prove that the horse is not only fast on Sundays and that his build can take lots of running. (In riding and driving, wins and placements are taken into account but there is no set formula. In dressage, the percentage points are also given a look. Work horse competitions... It's a standard format of competition, so I think they'll be more likely to look at the actual performance than whether the horse placed second or fifth. Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * * Oh, forgot to finish. "raced horses must do no worse than +5 seconds to their personal best, but anything under 1:32.0 will be a qualification. This gives some scope."


 * Would it work, then, to add some little explanation like "Finnhorses must meet or exceed a fixed set of standards to be admitted to the studbook" ?  If you think so, go for it, or I can.   Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to... I'm planning to do each section quite similarly to the draught subsection, however it will take time, so a little addition would not be a bad idea at all. "Finnhorses must meet or exceed a fixed set of standards to be admitted to the studbook" sounds silly and well-d'uh to me of course, but then again, Americans... ;) Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the "duh" is needed, though precise phrasing is certainly negotiable. The American tradition for most breeds outside of the warmblood and Baroque breeds where the European homeland still exercises some worldwide control, is to just register everything with registered parents and an owner willing to send in $50 to $100. Daring to deny registration to something simply because it's an untrainable piece of crap with its legs put on backwards would probably mean the owner would sue the registry.  Sorry that I'm so hesitant to express what I really feel about that, but let's just say that the fact that genetic diseases are particularly prevalent in the American Quarter Horse (with at least five, one fatal in foalhood) and the Arabian horse (six; two fatal in foalhood) might have some correlation to this policy. (**grumbling**)  Montanabw (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

''The fastest time, a 1:19.4 per kilometre run at the Elitkampen race in Solvalla, is held by the stallion Sipori. However, since he placed second after Järvsöfaks, this result is not considered the official Finnish record. ''
 * Well, Järvsöfaks won the heat, so he was faster, so no. Besides his record is 1:17.9... much better than the current Finnhorse record 1:19.something. Järvsöfaks is a "Scandinavian coldblood trotter" (sire all-Norwegian lines, dam all-Swedish actually). Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the whole thing should just be cut as confusing...or say "the current unoffiical fastest time FOR A FINNHORSE is... however, it is not official because only wins are recorded for official purposes, and Sipori was beaten in the heat by a horse of another breed." Or something.   I don't know, just un-confuse me...   Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that he lost to a horse. I don't know what the logic behind the rules are, but they seem obsolete as Finnhorses nowadays quite frequently take part in international matches in Sweden and Norway too, against animals that have no right and no place to obtain Finnish records. You'd think it wouldn't matter if the horse lost to a horse of another breed from another country? Buuut then again it would be cruel towards race commentators 9w9 "-aaaaand Kallen Kihaus finally reaches the line, a whopping 20 seconds after the Swedish superstar Dahlbergs Blomma, and yes, it's a new Finnish record! [Long and confusing explanation why it is a new record even if another horse just did 20 seconds better]." Most of the spectators would just think that Suomen Hippos have gone mad. A horse is a horse right? Harness racing in Finland is being developed from the POV that it's a spectators' sport. Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I say your call on that, my only real point is that what's in there is confusing. I think part of this is because in places like the US and Australia, (dunno how big a think harness racing is in the UK) harness racing is entirely Standardbred racing, no mixed competition between breeds... The idea of mixed breeds racing is new to most of us native English-speaking sorts. So edit in a way that explains it to people who only know about Standardbreds.  Montanabw (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 
 * Frankly, my dear, I have no inkling (yet). An article on Suomen Hippos thus enters my to-do list... "Suomen" means "Finland's" or "Finnish". Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, derived from "Suomi"?  So what does "Hevoskasvatusyhdistys" mean?   Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Horse breeding association. You wouldn't believe. Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Literally "Horse Horse Breeding Association?" I actually can believe it.  It's sort of how a lot of Indigenous people's names for their tribe literally translates as "the real people" or "the real human beings."  OF COURSE the Finnhorse is simple THE horse!  :-D  I'll throw a transition phrase in, see what you think.   Montanabw (talk)
 * Well, when the "Horse Breeding Association Hippos" was founded, the Finnhorse more or less were The Horse in Finland, and the association apparently had no interest in the rare precious playthings of the richest people, who were rare as well. With time, Hippos has moved on to be the All Your Horsey Needs Association in Finland. Pitke (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the old custom of pastures shared by municipalities or larger areas 
 * ...Yes? Not sure. Might also be that horses were mixed up so you never knew if you got your good mare back, or if it was the next hill's Janakkalas' useless clack. Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IF the system was akin to the "commons" concept in America and the UK (prior to enclosure), then everyone's stock was just mixed together, so that would explain some problems. Or if the animals were more like New Forest Ponies or something, left half-feral to fend for themselves, that is yet another set of problems...be interesting to clarify. Wonder if a book on cattle or something would explain the concept.  Pasture is pasture, whatever eats it  Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It just says "shared pastures", literally, no room for wiggling even if it's a bit vague. Idunno. SOurces for more detailed insight might be harder to come by. Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just remember this argument at GA if someone raises it.

An effort was made to keep the listing of horses as neutral as possible 
 * In the "no hard feelings" sense. Farmer uprisings was the last thing they needed. Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but hard feelings about what-- quantity, quality, scarcity? Taking the same number of horses from each person?  Taking the same general quality of animals?  Not taking certain rare bloodlines to their inevitable deaths?   That's where I got confused.   Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This something I purposefully left out: there were cases when a horse owner anticipated that his good broodmare would be picked. If he went out and bought an inferior (but passable) horse to take her place, there was no problem, and the swap was done openly. The source says it was a commonly acknowledged fact that even if a war would break out, the country would need good animals for creating the next generation. This may have been an official guideline. Hard feelings, as I would imagine, having read the sources, as in trying to be as fair as possible - not taking a poor tenant farmer's only horse, not taking the best animals if there were ok ones, and so on; and as in avoiding the "give up your horse, you don't need him as much as I do! Bwah bwah! We have your horse!" thing. The reserve horse lists were (I suppose) available to the public, so everyone could see who was giving how many horses, and could be assured everyone was treated as equally as sensibly possible. Pitke (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and all horses were carefully marked 
 * At first it was a brand mark in the hoof, but then they figured out it would be easier and clearer to shave the hair to form letters and numbers. Resisted the urge to include this, since the methods have nothing to do with Finnhorse as a breed, and there *will* be a main article to explain the war horse matter in more detail. Pitke (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Branding would be what I'd be looking for. Probably can say "branded or shaved" rather than "marked", which implies something like a Magic Marker...  and on the WWII thing, I do see your point, Finalnd was pretty unique... you aren't in THE war, but you are having A war -- or two -- and somehow you come out of it having pissed off both sides!  (noogies).  Nonetheless, I think putting in at least a summary (maybe even the same one here) into the Horses in World War II article would be very valuable because this WAS a major use.  Also an excuse for more wikilinking...  Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do it, I'll be busy adding sourced info and links to the existing half-a-million boots articles on Finnish wars during WWII... they say nothing about the 65 000 horses! You might find this essay interesting btw. Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the "automobile" thing is still bugging me...normally armies don't really talk about cars, though they are, obviously, used. More often they talk about stuff that can do some damage, like tanks and airplanes. I don't get why statistics about cars were relevant, precisely...I mean, I can see comparing horses to tractors in a discussion of farming, or horses to tanks in the military, but I don't get why cars were compared, seems not a correlation...troops normally were transported in things like trucks, trains, boats...cars don't shoot, cars don't carry more than about six people at best, so just help me out here, again a pea brain not wrapping around the concept issue. Montanabw (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, cars were the other way of transport. Other than that, it was bikes and skis. A helluva lot of marching too. All logistics was horse-powered, all artillery were horse-towed etc. Finns tell a joke that plays on a homophony pun; the horse says he's the more useful animal, because pulls this and carries that, and people can't really do a thing without him. The cow gets annoyed and asks him what he would do if he would be taken to the war front. The horse repeats his list, but the cow smugly claims "I will shoot the enemies" (I will moo at the enemies :3) Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's true that winter sort of creates a challenge all around. Interesting:  We haven't had wars where it snows much since the horse was fully decommissioned...and where it DOES snow, we have to use horses again...   Montanabw (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Registration vs stud book vs approval vs everything
''Making into a new section since this might get "ugly". Pitke (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)''

Another sort-of related thought, this because of the difference between US breed registries and the studbook system for Finnhorses, is to explain the approval by quality offspring thing more --Other than the warmblood breeders, who use European-style studbook evaluations, in the few US breed registries that still have limited open stud books that allow admission upon proving their quality (The Quarter Horse "Appendix" registry is the best-known of these), there is a sort of provisional registration that allows not-yet-approved horses to compete and earn fame or fortune (usually more of the former than the latter), but only then can that horse's offspring be registered or shown. Until the parent proves up, offspring are not even looked at, they can't put foot in the ring. So to my American pea brain, I am reading that bit on how a Finnhorse stallion can become admitted to the studbook by the quality of his offspring and going, "how can his offspring to have any accomplishments if he's not in the studbook in the first place?" Which might be dumb, but Americans have the habit of breeding bloodlines and not look at the horse in front of them. So just trying to figure out, I guess, what "in the studbook" means... for example, are geldings in the "studbook"? (in the US, the answer is yes, if the horse has two registered parents, then the offspring is registered. End of story)  Mares? Are foals given some sort of record prior to being old enough for evaluation?? Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Basics of horse system in Finland. Everything is controlled by Suomen Hippos.
 * Registration = all horses in Finland = the state knows that the horse exists. Foal enters the registry, gets a number (same format for all breeds). Non-registered horses are not admitted to compete in any way. To be registered as of certain breed, the parentage must meet the breed's requirements.
 * Stud book = stallions and mares that have been suitable for breeding of their breed (most often, stallions must prove that they would improve the breed, mares get away with being merely not detrimental). Geldings may be in the stud book, if they were accepted as stallions and gelded afterwards.Take an example. IInd prize stallion, gelded. A friend of mine had him as her charge and told me he was gelded for his own comfort and because he had little demand.
 * Furthermore, a horse offered for stud book must meet certain standards of the pedigree. Basically, its parents must be in the stud book. Breeds have different requirements. If memory serves, with Finnhorses it's both parents for stallions, for mares just the sire will do.
 * Trotters will not be admitted to compete in racing (→ cannot be taken to stud book) unless their sire is a Trotter section stud book stallion. The only exception to this is the concept of "home breeding", where the stallion and the mare are (more or less) permanently owned by the breeder. Thus also trotter stallions may be accepted for offspring.Pitke (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I guess the trick is to explain this in terms we can understand, because there are some differences from both the US system and what I understand to be the studbook selection process used in places like, say Germany.  I'll let you play with how detailed to get, but if I think of some smooth and easy "duh" explanations, I'll add.  As you write, keep in mind the meaning of these words to Americans (I won't speak for the Brits), and the terms also apply in a similar fashion to dogs, in fact a lot of the lingo crossed between the species, though not sure which was the chicken and which the egg.  Montanabw (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unregistered: Usually a mutt or a grade horse, but some purebreds when no one has bothered to do up the papers.  We don't track where animals are, for the most part.  Americans don't even like to register their guns and they REALLY hate even the notion that the government (aka"guvmint" or "gummint" in redneck) would know where their animals are.  See National Animal Identification System and then google the term to read all the hysteria (the way it was proposed would be kind of stupid for horse people in the US, we'd have to call in every time we put the horse in the trailer to go to a show).
 * Registered: See breed registry, which is often used interchangably with "stud book", we consider them the same thing -- Basically, the animal has recorded parentage and is recognized as being of a specific breed.  Criteria is usually pedigree alone, we are very democratic that way... (also more protfitable to not exclude anyone)  ;-)  Most are a closed stud book, though a few breeds (mostly warmbloods) have levels of approval to be breeding stock, and a few have an open stud book.  All registries in the USA are private organizations.  Some registries are pretty bogus, send us a photo of your horse and $50 and we'll call it something fancy and send you a pretty certificate.  And there are some that are long-established and make big bucks, even if questionable: the Palomino registry being one that makes huge bucks "registering" horses of a color that is genetically impossible to breed true more than 50% of the time... :-P
 * Recorded: Less common term, mostly used by groups like the USEF to identify animals in competition for year-end high point awards.  Sort of the "this horse exists in our system"

New bunch of pics, some really nice ones
For your consideration, "Summer pics and celebs". Comments in the lightbox if you please. Pitke (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For inclusion in THIS article the dressage rider one is way cool and it may be well worth adding (possibly removing something else of lower photographic quality in the process). The head shot of the old dressage horse is cute if there is a logical place for it.  The historic ones are always interesting if there's a spot for them, the hay wagon one is kind of fun, with the whole family on board, so to speak.  Montanabw (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of splitting; also a bunch of shiny new P section pics
So the article is now well over 100K, and is kinda "monstrous". I was thinking that the history part should be split off into a separate article so those interested in the breed wouldn't be drowned in details. I'd be glad to summarise the current history section into a few paragraphs too.

As for the P section pictures, I visited the Finnish National Pony Show 2010 last weekend, and am currently working on uploading my best shots from there. Many feature P section Finns, and we will be having quite a selection once I'm done uploading. All will be found in here. Pitke (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't split it yet; Arabian horse is also pretty long (127K). I think that once you get all the stuff in, then the next step is to go through and do a big copyedit, usually a person finds a lot of unneeded words to toss and notices that there is redundancy in different sections.  Once that is done, then the trick is to look at what could be spun off, not due to size, but due to topicality, where detail is best elsewhere with a summary here.  For example, the Crown Stallion System might be a good spinoff, as it was as much a part of the history of Finland to improve agriculture, etc. as part of just the Finnhorse's history.  Or to take another example, a new article on Coldblood Harness racing would be fun, as it appears to encompass breeds beyond the Finnhorse.  Nibble off various bits that have interest beyond just the Finnhorse and you probably will be surprised how much goes.  My own take is that when articles get broken down into many separate articles, the "Balkanization" of the topic often renders the main article less helpful that it could be.  JMO.   Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)