Talk:Gypsy horse/Archive 3

Unicorn section
Maybe that's the answer--to put the anecdotal history of the breed in its own "mythology" section under history. I've been busy modifying GHA's website to incorporate this anecdotal history. When it's uploaded perhaps that can be the source for this. No one will ever know the truth. It irks me to have to exclude this perhaps important information concerning the breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice job
SFGMary (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A pat on the back for all those who have contribute to the vast improvements to this page since my last visit here in December last year -- PBS (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Videos
There are some videos that might be helpful. I think the Henry Connors interview will certainly be ok, although unfortunately it's almost worthless as for as being informative. It's almost not understandable.

Here is an interview with Henry Connors at a fair a few years back. The Connors breeding preceded The Coal Horse in the pedigrees, if you look at the family tree.

http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/THE%20GYPSY%20HORSE/pedigree.html

"Old Henry" was named for Henry Connors. And "Henry Connors' White Horse" aka "The Palace Horse". The story is that some of the Connors horses were brought from Ireland to England. Robert Watson obtained some of them although he's not the one who brought them to England. Here is as much of the history as seems to be known:

http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/HORSES/Declan/Declan.html

Here is the interview. Sadly it's very hard to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h721_4h0-iM

Then there is this video, done at an open house a couple of years ago. Now Tom Price is in the business of selling horses, although he does it for the love of the breed. He is probably the largest breeder and IMO the most reputable in the world. If I were to buy another horse, I'd go to him. This is an excellent video on Gypsy Horse conformation. I would very much like to cite it. Can we? He's not actively selling in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqfXO_aRdbs

There are other videos of notable stallions, none of Road Sweeper or Coal Horse unfortunately. I'm not sure they'd be notable enough to include at this point. IMO the most noteworthy sires in recent history are Lion King and Gypsy King. SFGMary (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Our biggest problem is that virtually all the info is on what WP would deem "commercial breeder" sites. I would highly recommend trying to migrate some of this material onto the breed registry sites, where it will be deemed more reliable.  See WP:RS for what I'm talking about.   Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. When you say, "migrate", what does that mean? Could just referencing it from the registry site work? The youtube video of Henry Connors is where we've been getting the breed history in the pre-Coal Horse pedigree. I didn't think about that video. Probably the only record we'll ever have of that unless someone takes it and puts it down somewhere.

SFGMary (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Migrate, as in "move over to somewhere else" So yes, more or lessI.  The video sounds promising.  You'd want to explain why Tom Price is a significant expert on the breed.  (BTW, to cite a video, pinpoint cite to the time - see what I did with the YouTube video sources at my article William Robinson Brown, which just went FA about a week ago! (yay for me!))
 * If you read WP:RS, you will see that they prefer neutral, third=party sites with a reputation for research and fact-checking. Breed registries in general tend to fall into a gray area of being a little suspect because they are trying to promote horses, but generally reliable for things like history of the breed and such. We use breed registry sites a lot for defining breed standards and discussing some breed history (though we ignore crap claims like "pure since cavemen painted horses at Lascaux, and such claims detract from the reliability of a site), and we also may contradict some of their material if a third party site questions it.  But a third party site gets a bit more slack, for example, we probably can get in a lot of stuff about the significance of a horse like Gypsy King, just on the grounds that Breyer made a horse model out of him!  Thompson will be deemed credible because he is quoted in some of the breed encyclopedia articles about Vanners.    Montanabw (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry Connors appears to be presenting the pre-Coal Horse pedigree in that little video. I catch some of the names--Ballymartin, Sham. I've actually contacted a transcriber in Ireland to see if they could sort it out some.

I am going to put some of this commonly accepted history of the breed on my registry's website. It's frustrating not to be able to use it in the article. It could be hogwash but it's interesting hogwash and we'll never know any, until they invent a time machine that is.

Can you think of anything else to address in the article? I'm going to include the history once i have it up on the site and work in these videos. We're talking about a more formal video, with diagrams and stuff, but not there yet.

Thanks for all your help. I'm very pleased with the article. Not something I'm embarrassed for new people to read. Not GVHS propaganda or any other kind of propaganda.

SFGMary (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it has been greatly improved. At this point, I am going to invite some outside eyes to look it over.  The biggest thing I see is that we want to go a-hunting for good accurate articles published by third-party sources (magazines, books, etc.) that will serve to further back up the material here that is sourced to breeder web sites.  As for things you want to put on the registry's web site, presuming there is oversight by others (at least in theory, if not in practice), pop the link to the articles/material in question here at talk and it may still be able to be inserted into the article.  By the way, this is not the only breed with great mythos and dubious claims, see Arabian_horse where we just decided to create a whole section devoted to the pink ponies and unicorns, just to keep that stuff OUT of the "real" history section.  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving
From my talk page:
 * Hey PBS, thanks for autoarchiving the talk at Gypsy horse, but can you tweak the parameters so that it archives every 60 days or so and doesn't necessarily archive at any particular length (though I like the preserving of 2-3 threads)? I ask because this article is prone to get a bunch of massive editing, followed by a long lull, so I don't want it too fast to archive, and I don't want long discussions accidentally split.  Is that doable? Thanks.   Montanabw (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have adjusted the time before archive to ~ six months (the comment below the bot command explains how it is calculated so anyone can change it to whatever they think is best). The algorithm the bot uses is only for whole section at a time so long discussions will not be accidentally split unless they are placed under different ==level 2== section headers. If the last comment in a section is five months old and someone adds a new one, the section will not be archived until another ~ six months goes by.

A word of warning, I think the bot looks at the time stamp on the lowest comment in a section so if that comment is added without a signature the section will never be archived (see " for a template to fix that problem -- NB subst: must be used if the bot is to see the signature).  Conversely a new comment placed between old comments is ignored by the bot when calculating if it should archive the section.

The length parameter is not the length on the talk page but the maximum length of an archive page before the bot starts a new archive page.

If you need more help -- or anything else tweaked -- then please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume that nothing prevents us from manually archiving something if we do note the unsigned parameter problem? Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing, but it is usually preferable to fix it so that the bot can do the archiving (some editors have trust issues). -- PBS (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Appleby Horse Fair
The Independent newspaper ran an article on Appleby Horse Fair this year which include a number of phonographs of Gypsy horses:
 * They also published a number of other photographs from Getty Images see Travellers arrive in Appleby for the annual Appleby Horse Fair (Getty Images) -- I think that pictures 1 and 2 of the eight are particularly interesting for the size of the animals. Using the men in the pictures for scale, those in picture one are horses (heavy cobs) while that in two is a pony.
 * They also published a number of other photographs from Getty Images see Travellers arrive in Appleby for the annual Appleby Horse Fair (Getty Images) -- I think that pictures 1 and 2 of the eight are particularly interesting for the size of the animals. Using the men in the pictures for scale, those in picture one are horses (heavy cobs) while that in two is a pony.

-- PBS (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting. Are those suitable in to reference in the article? I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and so don't know. Yes, they are continuing to breed down. Now the desirable height is around 10 hands. They horses aren't really used except when they go to Appleby in the traditional way.

There's been a bit of a dustup. An American wants to speed up the shrinking process and crossbreed Gypsies and Shetland ponies. The idea is to get the size down and then reintroduce Gypsy blood. Breeding up is the term i believe. The breeders overseas are not happy with her idea. SFGMary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Independent is a reliable source for its content, so if accurate otherwise (not all news writers are horse people...) it could be used, though doesn't have to be. But SHETLAND PONIES?  OMFG!  Idiots.  I suppose you might want to think about a section that touches upon breed controversies or politics, we haven't been using them as standalone sections, but we work them into various sections of each horse article (for example, if you look at [{Andalusian horse]], you will note there's a big dustup in Spain over which group is the "real official" registry; they even had a lawsuit in the EU over it.)  As far as putting stuff into the article, some things are best avoided if they are recent and apt to be a transitory brain fart.    Montanabw (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A section on politics eh? I could fill a whole article with that. There's been so much acrimony in the breed that I'm not sure that's wise. We've been lucky no one has stumbled on this yet. The Vanner people would probably be incensed at the use of the terms cob and horse used to describe the breed here. The UK breeders would probably see this as too American-o-centric and might not like any mention of "vanner" at all. Let's not poke a rattlesnake if we can help it. FYI i do not think the Shetland idea will work; GHA and maybe some other registries would register these in its crossbreed section, but the "breeding up" idea to bring size down won't fly. The results will be crosses, not considered true Gypsies, whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh, that's what I was afraid of. We had a previous edit dispute over the "Vanner" thing with a European-based editor here who was adamant about "cob" being the 'right' word.  I think as it sits, it's all good so long as the article kind of briefly hits the difference between Vanner, Cob, etc., which is probably needed for proper WP:NPOV -- I call it "teaching the controversy.  I'd skip the current fads and crossbreeding experiments for the most part. But as for controversy, seriously, look at how we handled the "Andalusian vs. 'PRE'" thing at Andalusian horse; also look at how we handled the Carthusian bloodline stuff (which some people want to claim is a different "breed")  We're pretty experienced at writing breed articles here that don't kowtow to the cliques and sacred cows.  Luckily for you, Wikiproject Equine has at least three solid veteran editors here who can help you  keep the article balanced and neutral.  Hugs!  Montanabw (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's good. I haven't said a word about working on this within the Gypsy Horse community. I know there'd be blowback. I am, alas, out of favor in the Vanner crowd. I was one of the two electees to GVHS board of directors. The established group, of which Thompson was a part, feared they'd lose control of the organization (whatever that means) and held the infamous New Years Eve meeting to drum out another board member on false charges of malfeasance. To prevent us from taking our seats on the board was the aim. Appointing someone else to take this member's place, the ruling clique then came up with these "pledges" that the newly elected board members were to sign. I had a Drum stallion at the time, and my pledge forbad me from promoting, showing, or even acknowledging that i owned him. The nominal excuse was that Drums, by their existence, sent a "confusing message" as to what a Vanner was. Oh and I had used a website called americangypsyhorses.com to advertise horses for sale--that was cited too. GVHS violated its own bylaws with the excuse it used to drum out that board member in that New Years Eve meeting; i think there was a lawsuit there too, but it was settled quietly. Some others and myself then founded Gypsy Horse Association, the only registry, in my opinion, not formed to benefit certain members at the expense of others. Anyway, that's another reason this writeup would be controversial--it would be felt to not give enough credit to Thompson for renaming the breed. SFGMary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. I have long held the view that most horse people (no doubt including me) are nuts and far better at getting along with animals than people.  This simply adds ammo to my collection.  Your bunch is not significantly more dysfunctional than any other horse club I've come across.  (I once got drummed out of a local club because I insisted they get liability insurance for an event, duh...)  Did you know that the Appaloosa people were trying to argue that their breed's genetic propensity to eye trouble, known to be linked to the leopard complex was "caused by a wormer" ?  Sigh... Oh trust me, you got no market on crazy...  Montanabw (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Question
If i enter a question here will it get seen? SFGMary (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By me! LOL! (Maybe 1-2 other WPEQ members)  Montanabw (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

New U.K. Registries
I'm not sure if you'll see this--I'll try to contact directly if you don't.

Two new registries have websites. I'm not sure they are incorporated as nonprofits in the U.K. to be honest. Both can apparently issue passports. The most controversial claim for both is a searchable database of DNA markers. Such a database is only as useful as the number of horses included. Also, identifying that two horses have, say, 10 markers out of 17 in common tells us what, exactly? There are is also some controversy involving GHA-registered horses markers. Apparently at least one of these registries has gone onto GHA's site and copied off the DNA markers of GHA-registered horses published there. I don't know--I am extremely skeptical about the value of such an undertaking as a searchable DNA database. Should I even report it? I have tried to describe it evenhandedly, so that its limitations are visible.

I am also be able to embellish a bit about these two registries. There are a couple of other services offered. Anyway, see what you think. SFGMary (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * eh, I'll let you decide if they are notable and legitimate or just a bunch of people trying to make money by printing pretty certificates.  You are the expert.  I'd say that "notability" would include if they have press releases in third-party publications or acknowledgement by other breed registries.  (Do Gypsy horses have their own magazine or newsletter, akin, say, to the Quarter Horse Journal or something - though smaller, of course...) or if a horse magazine notes them as a source.  See WP:NOTABILITY for ideas. I'd say you are under no obligation to list everyone in the world, just be sure you follow WP:NPOV - but not to the point where you are giving bandwidth to WP:FRINGE stuff.  Does that make sense?   Montanabw (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Issue of horse passports is regulated by law in Europe. To be authorised to issue passports in England an organisation must be on one of these two lists. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your all's input. The issue with the GHA DNA markers is that the use of these databases is apparently charged for. I am somewhat skeptical frankly and was when TGCA came online. The intent may be to make money rather than further the acceptance of the breed. I believe I will hold off adding these to the article until they have proven themselves. And no the GH world is still too fragmented for a single globally accepted publication unfortunately. Many reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting GCR but who knows? Thanks again for the input. SFGMary (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Breyer Horses
Is this worth noting? There's been 3 so far, and 2 Drums SFGMary (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of mixed feelings, usually if an animal is individually notable and made into a Breyer, yes, but breeds... there are dozens of Arabians, multiple quarter horses, etc., and none of those breed articles mentions it, (there also is a Haflinger and a Lusitano) so it kind of depends. Maybe go to Breyer horse and click "what links here" to see where it has been used?   Montanabw (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI--I joined GCR. Many of the well established reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting it. I'll see what's there. SFGMary (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh these are individual horses--Gypsy King, Kuchi, Taskin.the Drums are Galway Warrior and Mariah's Boon. The horses really haven't done anything to be accorded this honor. Kuchi was the 1st "Gypsy Vanner" (i.e., GVHS-registered horse) born in America. GK and Taskin are notable sires and good examples of the breed. Galway Warrior belonged to the Queen and was bought by Black Forest Shires and brought to America to serve as a breeding stallion. SFGMary (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Messing up citations
Who the Hell has messed up the references on the page? If you don't know how to do it, don't do it. SFGMary (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked in the history, and the errors pop up going back several months. I suspect that a template got changed and it messed up things here. Probably nothing to do but go in and manually fix.  :-P   Montanabw (talk)  19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to overreact--I worked so hard on this and then it looks like a bull in a china shop went through and got everything messed up. SFGMary (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they've changed something so that it now shows up when the same name is used for two different references. The first of several errors of that kind was introduced with … by you, . If you don't know how to fix it, ping me and I will. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I got it fixed.  Montanabw (talk)  00:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This article
I've just looked at his article for the first time in a while. We seem to have a fine mess. I don't want to lay too heavily into something that a lot of work has gone into, but a few things really need to be said. First, a lot of edits seem to have been made by a WP:COI editor, who I believe should, right from the start, have been invited to read our conflict of interest policy and then request edits here, on this page, in the normal way. Second, this horse is, in Irish popular memory as in popular film by Walt Disney, inextricably linked not with the Roma but with the Pavees, the Irish Travellers, the people we used to call "tinkers" until tinker and gypsy became terms of opprobrium (OK, I recognise that a lot of people, from – until recently – the British government on down, can't tell the difference, but the travellers are not Roma; and OK, I recognise that that statement should be, but is not, supported by reliable sources). Third, what's all this "Romanichal" stuff? We (now) call them Roma or Romani people; as I understand it (which isn't far), Romanichal is a sub-group of that people. And last, why is so much of this page about the United States? This is a historic horse breed from the British Isles; how could (for example) the affiliation of some breed associations with the United States Equestrian Federation or the United States Dressage Federation possibly be relevant in the lead? I think this really needs some input from editors with more extensive knowledge of the cultural background. I'll add some Wikiprojects to this page as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi JLAN, I am most certainly open to improving and expanding the material on this horse in Ireland and the UK, so if you have some source material or if your tags bring in knowledgeable editors, that would be great! As for what's here, the bottom line is that when they started importing them to the USA, an American registry developed (there are now four, apparently the people can't get along, I don't know...) and the Gypsy horses bring the big bucks here; they have spread all over, I even judged a little 4-H horse show in Wyoming this summer where there were three of four of them. As for COI editing, I actually watched and mentored SFGMary as she worked on the article, and the talk page and archives show our interaction; I cautioned her from time to time on the COI issues, and she has been a very good listener.  The sources used here do reflect the knowledge in the USA, and where there is a lack of cultural understanding and historical background, I am sure we all will work together to clarify these matters.   Montanabw (talk)  01:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Romanichal appears to refer to the Roma people of the British Isles, at least according to the WP article.  Montanabw (talk)  01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What that page appears to say is that Romanichal is a sub-group of Roma people in Britain. I've no idea if that is correct or not, but for what it's worth, it is confirmed in of the page by self-declared Romany User:Cushti Bok – whose expertise would be valuable here. We call them "Roma" or "Romany"; for comparison, BBC news usage is, in descending order: 1, 2, 3. I suggest changing this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi JLAN, This is SFGMary and I guess I'm the conflict-of-interest person to whom you're referring. I would dearly love to have material related to the horse's history in the British Isles but I have not been able to find any that Wikipedia would recognize. I've actually sneaked a bit of anecdotal information in that is unsupported except through anecdote just to preserve it. The Hart book appears to be the only source from the UK that documents the horse's history. I know and have talked with a good many of the current breeders and have a good bit of info I can't use, simply because it is anecdotal. If you have some other sources, I'd love to hear about them. The breeders did not document what they did, preserved it only in oral tradition. If my health were better and if it would be welcomed, I'd love to research and write a book on the horse's history in the UK. As an American though, I'm not sure my efforts would be welcome. SFGMary (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I had thought I was helping but apparently not. You can revert this back to before I started working on it since I've made such a mess of it. I also made some changes to another page on a Romany stallion whose name I can't bring to mind at the moment. I won't touch either page again. SFGMary (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SFGMary, don't fret so. I know you are doing the best you can with limited source material. JLAN is one of our strongest European-based horse editors and he often draws the attention of we American editors to our North American bias, but the bias can't be helped if we can't find more stuff, there is a need here to add any UK/Ireland-based material that can be found (the  Irish Cob Society appears to be the only UK-based source??)   I do hope you write a book, then we'd have a RS for this article!   Montanabw (talk)  05:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , none of this is easy - this page has been a problem area for years. You've done things just as you were advised to, and obviously put a lot of work into doing so. With hindsight, I believe it might have been preferable if you had been given the same advice that is usually given to correctly-declared interested parties: please propose changes on the talk-page. But what's done is done.
 * Looking forward, I see three main problems here:
 * This horse is presented, from the page title on, as being associated with the Roma; I'm sure that's partly correct. However, it is also traditionally associated with the Irish Travellers, who though culturally similar are not the same people. I first raised this at Talk:Gypsy horse/Archive 1 in 2011; I'm not sure that archiving this talk-page has been helpful. It's definitely not easy to document this association; until very recently this was considered a type, not a breed (as children, we used to say "Oh, look, a piebald horse" – there is no other UK piebald horse). "A tinker's horse" is a pejorative term for a poor animal. A couple of mentions are this in Baron Michael Morris Killanin, My Ireland: a personal impression and these in Irish Travellers: Tinkers No More by Alen MacWeeney. The link with the the travellers is of course reflected in the name "Tinker" used for these horses in Germany and Holland. Distinguishing the two cultures is not easy (the British government didn't bother to until the census of 2011) and often probably requires intimate specialist knowledge; is this fine gentleman Pavee or Romany or neither? – I know I have no idea. Are the caravans pictured in the article reliably identified as Romany (apart from the van Gogh, which has no relevance at all)?
 * The page title should be changed to something more neutral and that reflects more of the history. I have suggested "Irish Cob"; has suggested "Coloured Cob"; either would at this point be fine with me.
 * There is at present undue weight given to the United States and matters relating in a page on an Irish or British horse. I'm aware that there has been a recent flurry of interest there; there's also been similar interest in Germany, for example, but I don't see much coverage of that. I suggest that content relating to the US be trimmed in the hope of restoring some sort of balance.
 * Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't blame Montana--whatever is wrong is my fault. It would have been better if I had never addressed it. I'm sure you will improve it as it should be.

I assume I still have permission to post here. About your changes: 1. The mare in the photo is genetically a tobiano. I had her tested--no agouti (i.e., bay) or cream. Granted she could have something exotic like champagne I guess--I did not test everything. She is not a bay, smokey black, or chestnut, however. She just fades in the sun. 2. You should remove the part about Roadsweeper being brought to England and what follows. There's no external source for that either in print or on the web, as far as I know, except my site. I wanted that info preserved somewhere. 3. a citation is not needed for the leopard pattern; if you looked at the source, it is from Hart, which follows. I won't look at this any further.

Now, since I apparently cannot make a positive contribution, I'd like to cancel my Wikipedia login. I won't be making any further contributions, either financially or contentwise. I'm sorry I've been such a detriment. I do not go where I am not wanted. SFGMary (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

SFGMary (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

JLAN, WP:COI is clear that people need to disclose their interest, but they are not prohibited from editing (paid editors who do not disclose their involvement are, howevr)and somewhere along the way here, Mary did; I've been aware that she is active with these horses all along and spent my time mostly watching and offering help. I probably should have posted the appropriate template here at talk, but a COI editor CAN edit, it's just that their edits are subject to more scrutiny. I think that there was a lot of good material added here, and as the folks in th UK clearly didn't care enough about these horses to standardize their registry until they saw the Americans making money at it, really you DO have to give a nod to the Americans who put a lot of time and energy into making these horses popular. So let's try to seek a compromise that is accurate and educates the reader and is fair to everyone. Montanabw (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Repair, improvment
OK, folks, I'm diving in here and boldly comparing edits in a sincere attempt to use the best of each editor's contributions. So, with that in mind, please, both of you, do the following:
 * 1) Use the or  tags (or other appropriate tag) where something appears to be just plain incorrect, and then we can discuss it here.
 * 2) If I separated info from the citation, just fix it, I'm not as familiar with the source material as others may be
 * 3) I personally feel quite strongly that the "Characteristics" section needs to come before the more complex "History" section, as I believe many of the horse breed articles are accessed by young people and they first want to know what the animal looks like; the more sophisticated reader is interested in history, and they will continue to read on. And, frankly, it was the swapping of the order of the two sections without discussion that caused the appearance of more dramatic changes than actually occurred. Trout slap for that one!  (Clearly, the issue of swapping the sections can be discussed, but that's separate from content)
 * 4) I am comfortable using UK English for a breed with UK origins, so feel free to correct any errors in that department; that said, I loathe excess hyphenation and consider it to be archaic, so if it is a mere style question, and reasonable minds can differ, let's leave them out
 * 5) My intent is to balance both the UK and the US understanding of these horses, and anything we can do to add sections or subsections, I'm all ears.
 * 6) Any disputes over "Roma" "Romani" and "Romanichal" (or "Travellers") should go to the boards for people working on those articles, and I am suggesting we do so to be sure no ethnic slurs are involved (Somewhere, I've gotten the impression that "Travellers" is not favored in some circles, but I don't know this for sure) Also, outside research would be wise.
 * 7) I don't think that the US material needs further trimming, though that is up for discussion; I think the better approach is to ADD more on what is going on in the UK, Ireland, and so on. For Continental Europe someone who speaks German, Dutch, or other languages could do a little work there.
 * AGF, everyone.

OK, I'm done. my changes from SFGMary's last "clean" edit are here. I undid the switch of the "characteristics" and "history" sections then compared everything paragraph by paragraph. I basically tried very hard to use JLAN's phrasing and UK English throughout, save where it wasn't making sense to me. I generally kept JLAN's work to put UK material primary, save for the title, where I mixed and matched. Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much done too. It'd take a braver soul than I to sort all this out., please assume that I know how to write and spell in my own language, whether or not that makes sense to you; we don't put "piebald" in quotes in running text, for example. I hope I'm capable of evaluating the current (and indeed the past ) common usage in referring to the various ethnicities of travelling people in the British Isles, but remain open to correction on that; as the discussions here and here, for example, make clear, there is no one good answer. I believe that in the absence of definite assurance that they are acceptable, the terms "tinker" and "gypsy" should be avoided within reason; and that this article should be moved for that reason if no other (I've restored my previous wording of the lead sentence for that reason too). I can read German and – not without difficulty – Dutch.
 * As for the section order, it doesn't really matter. However, innumerable articles in Wikipedia, including several thousand animal breed articles, put a "History" section before descriptive details, without worrying too much that children might be too dumb to look at the TOC if they want to read the description first. So please, keep your trout for your own consumption. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with you editing in UK English and meant no offense (offence), I just don't see even the UK-based editors using all that many hyphens. But as far as the title, we have a perhaps irreconcilable problem with few in the USA having the slightest notion of what an "Irish Cob" is, yet "Gypsy" is a slur.  (and not a lot of Americans understand that either; "gypsies" are romanticized exotics, but "travellers" are the sleazeballs who will cheat you on a roofing job).  I think we need to continue to figure out what to do there. We have the scientific nam for the Gypsy moth, but no similar solution for a horse breed.   Montanabw (talk)  22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as children go, my position is not that the reader is "dumb", but that the editor expresses courtesy to the reader. Writing guidelines for educational textbooks and encyclopedias is that you put the material the reader is most likely to need first and recognize how school assignments are going to be structured. 10 year olds want to know what the horse looks like and the teacher wants them to write one page about their favorite animal; Middle school kids will want to know the history, they have to write a longer paper about their favorite animal; high school kids (and some college students in their first year) have to do analysis and they aren't supposed to use wikipedia (except they do and just use the footnotes for their own research).  History first makes sense in some articles but not others; just because it is done that way elswhere doesn't mean it is ideal, nor is it what has to be done this way here.  Montanabw (talk)  22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it probably cuts both ways: no-one had any idea what "vanner" was supposed to mean (a rare word that had become obsolete about 100 years ago, I didn't know until yesterday that it was even in the dictionary), and I suspect but of course cannot prove that it is meaningless to most people in Britain and Ireland to this day. As I said above, I proposed "Irish Cob" as the title for this page in 2011, but would be happy to defer to that suggested by, whose knowledge on such matters is far greater than mine. Nevertheless, I'd point out that "Irish Cob" is far and away the predominant name in Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Germany, France, Czech Republic and of course Ireland, what did I miss? – and, yes, a couple of those have separate "Tinker" stud-books too), so I still favour it for that reason. One thing is for certain here: no child is going to discover what these horses look like by reading the Characteristics section as it now stands; in general, young children should be directed to Simple Wikipedia. Oh, and we call those roofers "cowboys": not long ago I saw a builders' lorry driven by dark-complected gentlemen; the slogan on the side was "You've had the cowboys – why not try the Indians?" Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Heh, in the USA, a cowboy is a noble figure (and I live in Montana, where he is glorified) and the "travellers" are dismissed as incest-ridden, inbred, criminally-inclined people from somewhere down south. As a westerner, I am sometimes quick to take offense if someone should compare the west to the south, though both regions have a larger rural population than the rest of the country.   Montanabw (talk)  02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the political issues, The bottom line is that we probably need to work on a balance of both UK and US phrasing and terms; I'm willing to help sort that out, somehow. As for the Irish Cob question, I don't think Richard is active on WP much any more, but I'm Facebook friends with him and can ping him. (I also know someone of "Romanichal" background who lives in the UK, she might informally shed light on the Roma/Romani/Romanichal question, I liked that brochure, by the way, good link.) I'm not closed to the idea of a move to Irish Cob, but want to have a pretty settled thought process on that—and give me some credit for putting the UK stuff first in the lead, but bottom line is that it was the Americans who realized these horses needed to have registration standardized and a "standardized breed" created, while the Brits were too close to the situation to pick up on that... at first... now they are on board, because they can export their stuff for 10,000 a pop to the USA... $$$$, ££££, €€€€ .... ;-)  Montanabw (talk)  02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference format
One of the obstacles to improvement of this page is the confused reference system (no criticism of how it came about, but it is a hybrid of several ways of doing this). Would anyone object if I changed the referencing system to list-defined, which gets the reference text out of the body of the article and puts it in its own section at the foot, so that we have one easy and consistent system? I'll probably do so in a day or two if no-one voices an objection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that, don't change any ref names, at least for now, but LDR is fine and on a longer article like this, preferable. My only caveat is that because even after the cataract surgery I still have trouble distinguishing straight and curly brackets in the edit window, I prefer the inline refs to be in format instead of format; but I can live with either one  Montanabw (talk)  07:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Published article?
An article, How to evaluate feather in the Gypsy Horse, by Christine Bartko, is currently used as a reference in the page. Was this article ever published in a WP:reliable source? If so, the citation should be to that source; if not, the reference should be removed. Obviously, we can't use what commercial breeders' sites say as references here. NB: the author's surname is the same as that of the site owner. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:V mandates citations for material "challenged or likely to be challenged." It doesn't demand removal of WP:SELFPUBLISHed souces, but rather says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The problem with these horses is that there just is not a lot of published stuff out there.  However a Google search on "Christine Bartko" reveals that a)  She died in 2010, and b) she is mentioned on other Gypsy horse sites as, along with her husband Jeff, being a major breeder of Gypsy horses. (Plus she is apparently mentioned in the Hockensmith book, according to her obit) So, I think it's safe to say she was an expert and if she is now deceased, it's not like she is in it for profit now. We are—legitimately—up against the problem of an oral tradition that is being preserved by non-scholars.  (Ironically, I'm running into similar problems with the Spanish Riding School article...)  Montanabw (talk)  02:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some third-party links on Bartko: a book by someone else (looks self-published, but...), a memorial trophy awarded in her name.  My take is that if we were to take this article to FAC it wouldn't make it, but I also don't see policy mandating that we remove the links; looks to me like this individual (and her spouse) was considered an expert in US circles; doesn't mean she wrote the gospel, but absent other sources, I'd prefer to see a lightweight source than no source at all.   Montanabw (talk)  03:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remove my article Mary Graybeal, GHA affiliate news. It adds nothing and if Christine Bartko's article is not good enough, mine certainly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine I'll do it myself. Please don't reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you have not noticed-- Lake Ridge is a commercial operation as is WR Ranch. There is still a reference or two to Black Forest Shires. These should be removed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

At least 3 of the photographs are Anerican owned horses and at least one is Anerican bred. Should be removed. I'm sure an Irish cob photo would be more appropriate for the main photo? JustaCorpse (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I would really prefer that photos of horses I have owned and bred not be included in this article. Since so much of value has not been considered good enough to be included, I do not see that these should be either. Please replace the photo of feathering (from an American Drum Horse) and the main photo. I have removed the hockset photo, which was associated with a discussion based on Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses. I am sure you can find a nice Irish cob photo to replace it. Mary Graybeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've managed to "purify" the article. I would recommend Hockensmith be removed since he is American and is the section on names really needed? I wouldn't think the discussion of the derivation of "vanner" is really needed?

Since I wrote most of this monstrosity, it's only right I eviserate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is "since he is American" an appropriate reason for removing material and references? Ian (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , is aggrieved because I changed the spelling of this page to British English per WP:TIES and (barely) started on making some other changes too (please see my comments above). I'm not going to edit here for a few days (at the very least) for reasons of my own, but I suggest that the recent IP edits are not intended to improve the encyclopaedia and should almost certainly be reverted. SGFMary, please be careful not to step over the line into the realm of disruptive editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK people, everyone is a little raw. I don't own this breed, I don't make money from this breed, but I have worked on a lot of the horse breed articles here, with about 40 GA-class articles that I've been heavily involved with.  My position is simple:  Yes, the horse originated in the British Isles; but it's also obvious that they were dismissed and ignored by the locals and were only standardized into a "breed" after they gained interest in the United States.  So there is a need for a balance between UK and US perspective here, and both are valuable.  Taking an "all or nothing" approach to this article is not in anyone's interest. I am returning the article to the last stable version and I recommend that EVERYONE just leaves it be for a month or so until tempers cool.    Montanabw (talk)  22:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If Christine Bartko is not good enough for wikipedia, then neither am i or anything i have produced. i am extremely sorry i ever tried to do anything with this and apparently so are you all.


 * You must have misread what I said above; Christine Bartko appears to be an expert in the area. I think you did good work on this article and I feel bad that one editor's comments have caused so much difficulty. The problem is the difficulty in finding sources overall; I'm trying to find a middle ground between the two positions here, and trying to keep the discussion from getting too emotional.   Montanabw (talk)  09:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * " My position is simple: Yes, the horse originated in the British Isles; but it's also obvious that they were dismissed and ignored by the locals and were only standardized into a "breed" after they gained interest in the United States.". Gosh that really is arrogant rubbish. The locals who used these horses were and are the gypsies and tinkers, and to suggest they ignored these horses until some clever foreigner came along is an appalling insult. They didn't have what you would recognise as a breed registry for the very simple reason that such written recording is alien to them. Oral tradition is all that matters in a population that has a high degree of illiteracy, and within their social groups the oral histories will be well kept. If you're not a member of the Roma or Tinker societies, your chances of getting an insight into those traditions are nil. The travelling folk know what they need from a pony and that's what they'll breed towards without any input from an American breed society. If you don't believe me, go to any pub in Appleby in early June and start lecturing about breed societies and see what happens.........you'll be in the river inside an hour.

Olddemdike (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Mainstream dominant culture seldom pays any marginalized group respect so if things like animal breeding and pedigrees are not written down, these things are in danger of being cast aside as these cultures (worldwide, not just Roma people) gain literacy and move away from the traditions of their parents and grandparents. (This played out with the Bedouin around Yemen, the horse was replaced by the Toyota pickup and what was once a font of purebred Arabian bloodstock was lost to the world)  Nothing here is putting down the Romani, it is more a position that there are people who wanted preserve a type of horse that many folks thought was worth preserving. Not sure what your concern is here. If you have a point about the content of the article that you'd like to discuss, do share.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  04:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Gypsy horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gypsyhorses.com/events/parkershow04.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bitabothfarm.com/Shows.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Drum Horse" photo....... That photo of a supposed "Drum Horse" of the Household Cavalry is actually of a pure-bred Shire Horse.... Contrary to the rubbish written in the article, piebald and skewbald bloodlines never died out in the shire breed. "Drum Horse" as a concept appears to be an American fake construction. The Household Cavalry always used Shires — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olddemdike (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Provide us a source to prove it. Always willing to set the record straight. See WP:RS.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  04:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverts
I reverted the most recent 3 edits for the following reasons: they didn't provide sufficient sources, went against the sources that are here, and were focused on the Pacific Northwest (when this is obviously a British horse and the article is supposed to be worldwide). This is just for the record as rollback refuses to give me an edit summary. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Coloured Cobs
I realise the name thing has been hashed out multiple times, and I have no intention of bringing that mess up again, no matter how I feel about it (the article isn't about me...). However, listing "Coloured Cob" as a synonym for "Irish Cob" is a serious misunderstanding. In Europe, "Coloured" refers to broken-coloured horses (Tobiano, Overo etc., Skewbald, whatever). If this is based on trends on Google etc., it's simply due to the fact that coloured cobs are frequently searched for as they are very popular - the use of the term "Coloured Cob" never refers to a breed, only to a cob which is coloured! In Ireland, some of the most popular cob studs are dun, palomino, chestnut, black etc. (dilute and solid colours), so it's incorrect to generalise the breed based on one of the permissible colours.

On a side note, the French version of this article is a FA, and has a lot of really interested and very well cited information that could be migrated over. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that here in the United States, Colored Cob is a another name for the Gypsy Vanners and is used solely for them. I've certainly seen it in ads for them. Very few people have cobs here, any kind (at least in the part of the country I am in), and you don't hear the word much at all. Maybe we can find a source that says "this name is specifically used in the US, not Britain" ? White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In Europe and the UK, when you see the term "Coloured Cob" in an ad, it's generally just because the seller wants to draw attention to the appearance of the animal when the ad title has a word limit. It's a very common phrase in horse listings as cobs are very popular due to their temperament and they're more often than not coloured. Just looking through American listings for cobs for sale, I couldn't find any referred to as "Colored Cob" (beside this breeder, who is simply called "The Coloured Cob Gypsy Horses"!). Even searching for "Cob" seems to bring up more Welsh Cobs than anything else! I can't find the term being used anywhere else in the US in conjunction with describing this breed. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, I think that should be removed, or at least reverted to the correct and neutral wording that was used when it was . As you may have seen, this article has been pretty much a battleground for as long as anyone can recall, and still seriously needs sorting out, starting with the page-name, which is (a) highly misleading, as I understand the history, and (b) contains what is – again, as I understand it – now regarded as a pejorative term if not exactly a racial slur (but probably that too). It'd be great if someone wanted to do some work here. I suggest (as I've probably already done more than once, really I forget) a move to Irish Cob, since it's a cob and it's Irish and that's what it's called in Ireland. Then I suggest replacing most of the references to "Roma" with "travellers" unless the source actually specifies Roma – as opposed to Pavee – people.
 * Oh, and this source might be useful in bringing the page up to date. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with your feelings surrounding the name (but am afraid to mention it after reading through the talk archives - I originally searched Irish Cob and there wasn't even a redirect, so I set one up), as well as the tendency to refer exclusively to Romani people instead of the Pavee. Additionally, the article seems to go one way in talking about pre-20th century roots, and then insinuates the breed was developed sometime around WWII, or even 1979? It's certainly very confusing to anyone reading the history section. The article as a whole is clearly a mess, maybe some input from the travelling community (or at least the people who work on those pages) would help? It's a known fact that the reason a registry (such as HSI's Irish Cob Studbook) wasn't set up was because the travelling community's own records were sufficient for what they needed. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings one way or the other regarding the name, and if Ireland calls them Irish Cobs I wouldn't oppose the move, but here in the United States they're generally Gypsy Vanner Horses, never just Gypsy horses. They're a fad here, along with Friesians, and have been ever since the mid 2000s. I don't know how many movies have been made featuring them, but that's helped bump up the popularity (and probably the edit wars here). From what I understand of the history, they were only brought here in the mid 1990s and were just then becoming a formal breed. Most of the sources I've read imply that the travelers/Roma people had this type of horse for many years, but didn't really track pedigrees and it wasn't until the mid 1900s that somebody really got serious about making it a "breed". That isn't atypical. Tennessee Walking Horses as a breed didn't originate until Black Allan sired the foundation horses in the early 1910s, but the gaited horse type they came from existed prior to the Civil War, so they're described as originating then in a freaking lot of sources. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The type vs. breed argument is a bit of a problem, because you can find sources claiming either. I believe that the source of the confusion is where the Thompsons are claiming that they "saved" the "type" and "created" a breed out of it, however I had a read through their website, and considering they keep referring to "gypsy magic" in their history, and believe all British cobs live under bridges with their "gypsy" owners, not to mention that they were sold "the most highly prized colt in all of Great Britain", by a "gypsy" at a horse fair, I'm not sure why someone thought it was a reliable source for the page...
 * I've had a look at trying to find decent sources, and it's going to be an uphill battle. I started with some of the official government publications, and its clear that if the breed wasn't suitable for export, farm work or rare (ie. TB, Irish Draught, Hunter or Connemara), they weren't too interested in it. Overseeing breeding was not a priority in the case of the Irish Cob, as it was such an ubiquitous breed (as it still is). However, there are some changes I think really need to be made in the meantime:
 * Coloured Cob should just be removed, it's uncited and more importantly this breed doesn't have to be coloured, so it's an incorrect designation.
 * "or any solid colour" should be removed, as dilute colours are common and accepted by all registries (this is in the citations).
 * I don't understand why the characteristics are written in such a way that the US standards are the rule and the European standards are the exception, when the US standard is the outlier.
 * Similarly, it states that feather is a highly valued attribute as if it was fact. The horses are naturally heavily feathered due to the conditions they originally developed to be accustomed to, but in Britain (and much of Europe) you are actually required to clip the feather for showing, so that the judge can evaluate the lower leg without it being obscured.
 * The GVHS standard quote states that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the tail base should be longer than the entire topline. I understand that the standard is just being quoted, but surely common sense kicks in since this line is within the topline.
 * I believe that the history was written in such a way as the different names are treated as different breeds, because it states in one section that the "Gypsy Horse" is derived from crossing Dales with Fells, Clydesdales and Shires, but later states the "Irish Cob" is derived from crossing Connemaras, Thoroughbreds and Irish Draughts, or something to that effect. It's fine to state that the actual provenance is not known, but here it states both as fact!
 * The "coloured cobs" paragraph is very specific, but now completely uncited (the only citation is dead with no archived version).
 * The phrase "Since this latter term was not applied to a "chimneyed house on wheels", or vardo, until 1872,[53] the term "vanner" has no inherent connection with the Roma." looks like WP:SYNTH, the connection is not stated by any citation.
 * Harvey does use the term "Vanner" (as well "Cob", if you look for it), but he speaks clearly about Travellers, not Romani people (he switched between "Gypsy" and "Traveller" throughout the book, never "Roma").
 * I'm confused by the statement that Hart, in 1993, is the "the first known acknowledgment of the Gypsy Horse as a distinct breed outside Romani culture", that's a very strong statement to make without citation, and is clearly false?
 * I'm happy to look for alternative citations for these, but would like to see if anyone has any opinions firstly. On a lighter note, here's a news broadcast showing an Irish Cob in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasechun tashunka (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

, agreed on all points. I think "solid" is intended to mean "unbroken"; Harvey apparently pre-dates the political correctness that made us change the names we use for travelling people.

It's very clear that when these horses were taken to the USA, they needed a back-story to help with marketing, and the more romantic the better. You have to raise your hat to those people – they made a world breed out of what was just the piebald horse that pulled the tinker's van (and they probably made a lot of money too). But none of that romanticised fantasy has any place here, and the sooner this is trimmed down to what is supported by sound reliable sources, the better. A bit more: There seems to be agreement here to move the page (right, ?), so I'll probably do that in a day or two. But ping, who has also taken an interest in this in the past, in case she has comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The interminable discussion of the word "vanner" can all go – that can presumably be found in a reference dictionary, but it's not useful here; we know what a vanner is, it's a horse that pulls a van (oh, and "grai" just means "horse", too)
 * I don't know how many of these horses there are in the USA, but obviously there are thousands in the British Isles, and a good number in some European countries. The importance given to what US associations do, say or require seems quite WP:UNDUE; perhaps some cuts could be made to restore a bit of balance?
 * I'll hold off on that for a bit. There's some food for thought here. Based on that fairly authoritative source, there might be a case for making two pages, one for the Irish Cob and another for Gypsy Cob. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Authoritative or not, it is directly contradicted by this (archived version because the current version has been hacked and is full of porn links). That says, roughly, that it's primarily a draught type with enough agility for riding; and that whole-coloured and broken-coloured coats are equally acceptable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting links. I would vote for it to be moved to either Irish Cob or Gypsy Vanner Horse. Then again, we could do Google searches for each name individually and move it to the one with the most hits per Common name. I don't have strong feelings either way. By the way, I'm not sure on the exact numbers of them here in the US, but I know I've actually seen them where I live, and for comparison I've only seen a couple of Morgans in my life (despite them being native) and have never seen a Welsh Cob in person. I've seen the A and B Welsh Ponies, but not a Cob. We don't have a lot of Thoroughbreds here either. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The most solid recent evidence in the country of origin I can find to date is Horse Sport Ireland's description of the breed, which does refer to it as a historic breed, rather than type. The Irish Cob Society had passport-issuing rights revoked by HSI (hence why they went under), therefore since HSI oversee the registry and studbook they are probably the best source right now.
 * I've been looking through sources on Travellers, and they rarely mention the horses. There are a couple of youtube videos as well, including a documentary, but they focus on the trotters rather than the cobs.
 * One thing that's been bugging me is the referencing to the second world war, which doesn't make much sense. There is a lot of evidence, however, for the use of cobs from Ireland in the first world war, and the second boer war in particular. They are, however, never referred to specifically as "Irish Cob", and that's a problem I've been coming up against a lot - although it is known that the Welsh cob had not taken a hold in Ireland at the time, the cob was very much a utility animal, and not much fuss was made about it, records only referring to "donkey/mule/cob/horse". The earliest mention I could find which referred specifically to the phrase "Irish Cob" was Lavengro (1851), which is a fictionalized work, however it does capitalize the words which suggests it was an accepted phrase at the time.
 * As for the naming side of things, according to Google Trends the term Gypsy Vanner is quite popular in Britain. This is in a large part due to the rise in popularity among non-horsey people of the rearing-horse-with-the-long-flowing-mane mentality. The horses themselves (hogged and clipped for show, or filthy in a muddy field) are still being referred to as cobs, and people don't seem to draw a parallel. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. I wonder if they were used in WWII to pull cannons or something of that sort? I know most countries still had cavalry and used horses in war at the time, but seems like the taller breeds would have been actually ridden and the shorter, stockier cobs would have been utilized another way. I know that in Europe in WWI they used Haflingers to pull cannons and ambulances, and cobs are similar to them in size and build. If the Gypsy Vanners were very common it looks like some would have gone to war. I just noticed your comment above that their feather must be clipped for show. That was a surprise because under the United States Equestrian Federation rules, Gypsy Vanners, Friesians, Clydesdales, Shires and a few others consider feather to be a major breed trait and want it in the show ring. (The owners obviously spend a lot of time grooming or have lots of stablehands.) On the other hand, if you have a Quarter Horse or whatever and it has feather, they definitely want it trimmed off. (My own horse is a mustang/Quarter cross and grows 2-3 inches of feather every winter that has to be cut off in spring. I leave it during the winter so his feet won't get wet because the hair seems to funnel water away from the hoof, which is probably why they have it....) White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Late to this party, but in short, if someone wants to create Irish cob, I kind of suspect it would be a content fork, but I'm fine with seeing how it develops. The Gypsy Vanner/Gypsy horse is now well-established as such in the USA, Australia and elsewhere with a clear breed standard and though it may be descended from the coloured cob and not all members of the breed may have pinto coloring, it's a "real thing" (and in the USA, a rather expensive one too). So, as always, find the reliable sources and cite to them. Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue with creating a separate Irish Cob page are that most of the page is devoted to history, and the history of both topics are almost identical, due to the relatively recent foundation of the Gypsy Vanner. Additionally, seeing as the standard here appears to be one breed-one page, in a similar way to how the Shetland Pony page covers the North American Shetland Pony as well, this page should present both the original Irish Cob and the US developments, perhaps as separate sections?
 * Currently, the article reads as if this breed has a history in the British Isles, but is primarily defined in the United States. It should be clearer from a quick read of the article that there are currently two populations, the original British population and the newer foreign population, and that they are both distinctive in their own way and popular in their respective areas. It should also have a history section that doesn't cite overseas sources that make no indication of having done proper scholarly research in the history of the breed (and anything that mentions "gypsy luck" really shouldn't be used...).
 * I've somehow only just noticed this phrase in the lead: "It is the only broken-coloured horse breed of the British Isles". I presume whoever put this in forgot of the existence of the Irish Sport Horse, Shetland Pony, etc.? If nobody has an objection, I really want to remove this.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you can see who added a particular bit of text to a page by using the Blame tool. I this case it . I don't know where I got that from, but indeed I must have forgotten about broken-coloured Irish Sport Horses, and those horrible cross-bred Shetlands (a Shetland should look like a Shetland IMO); and know that I didn't even know of the Irish Piebald and Skewbald. Mea culpa, thanks for noticing it – now removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I would suggest splitting the American Shetland out from the Shetland Pony article – it's a completely different breed. I also suggest splitting the "American Drum" content out of this page, as that also is a separate – and exclusively American – breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The American shetland is not a completely different breed, and we've had this debate before, many times... where we have different sub-groups of a breed that share a common history, but really lack sufficient differences to really be distinguishable, there is no need to create content forks; an overview article can cover them. Teach the controversy.   Montanabw (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree totally that the American Shetland Pony should have a separate article, perhaps with a hatnote on Shetland Pony to redirect people who come looking for the former. I also approve of the separation of Drum Horse article, since it had nothing to do with this topic! (Apart from the breeding influence, and that one registry...) No worries about that line, I'm just glad it's gone!
 * While I was fixing that dead Appleby link, I came upon a couple of interesting sources about traveller horses, although I would be curious how valid people find them. A website presents a photo ("first decade of the 20th century") of solid cobs (a colourized version dated "circa 1910" can be seen here) and quotes a certain "Bert Morland" as saying that most Gypsy Horses in the 50s were solid, with the coloured influence later coming from Irish imported horses. Here is another photo of solid-coloured gypsy cobs at the Brough Hill horse fair, published 1915 but probably much older. Much of the textual history about these fairs is steeped in questionable lore, for example a certain small fair in Buttevant which claims to have sold both Bonaparte's Marengo and Wellington's Copenhagen...Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

so sorry you all found my discussion of the name "interminable". I authored most of this and I heartily regret it. Have not been able to look at the article since I was last here. Wish I had not. SFGMary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This article was sitting there dead in the water till I took it on. I spent hours and hours on it. I've only gotten grief for it. Now what I wrote is "hogwash" and "interminable". JustLetters & Whatever apparently considered my contribution ... not a contribution. If anyone ever asks my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia, I will strongly advise them NOT to do it. I thought I was actually making a contribution. Helping. Apparently the editors here do not want help from subject matter experts. Why don't you just damned well delete the whole thing, which is apparently trash, and start over? SFGMary (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh lordy, here we go again. First off, the massive change to the is not advised to have been done without consensus, and, you know better than to go in and make those kinds of fixes without discussion, as it changes ref format for an entire article in ways that may cause trouble for other editors-- I know you prefer that format, and on articles you have created, you get the nod.  But here, it wasn't the consensus, plus the [XX]:xx construction makes the footnotes very difficult to read because one has to scroll to the footnote, but then back up to the text to see the page number.  LDR refs all placed at the end can be useful for reviewing, but works just as well, and sometimes better.  Second of all, this breed is very popular in the United States and if someone wants to create a different article about the British understanding of these animals, they are welcome to do so, but let's not trash this article to get there.   has extensive expertise on this subject of these horses in America and how they got here (and became so popular) and it is important to discuss the source for some of these other claims.  , you have some interesting sources that we can look at and discuss further.  I'm going to attempt to compromise here by moving refs to LDR location, but with existing formatting.   Montanabw (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , discussed and agreed (by you and me only) ; please get your facts straight before you start accusing people of doing things without consensus. has a conflict of interest here and it should have been made clear to her right from the start that it would not be appropriate for her to edit the article at all, but that she would be entirely welcome to suggest changes on the talk-page. I take my share of responsibility for not having done that; SFGMary, we handled this badly, I'm truly sorry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say that we did handle this rather badly, but by being bitey and mean-spirited. I disagree that a person who actually breeds or owns a particular breed of horses (or other animal) has a COI on the breed article (A COI on an article about their own animals or farm, yes, but not the breed).  As for LDR, there are two different things going on... the LDR stuff is OK (I do so on some of my articles) but the formatting of the refs in the body text that creates the [x]:xx form of citation for page numbers is really a problem because one cannot find the entire reference in the footnote -- it's mainly a problem for books.   I do see that there was actually relatively little content actually removed, but we must realize that the Americans have done a lot to preserve these horses when folks in the UK had little interest.  I also suggest thinking about the tone of edit summaries... we all probably need to do better there.  Montanabw (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
OK, in response to the wall of text above, first off: Hope this restarts the discussion in a more productive manner. Montanabw (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) We have to resolve this "Irish Cob" question... is this another content fork like the Drum Horse article or not?
 * 2) "Gypsy Cob" is real and used in the UK:
 * 3) "Coloured cob" seems to be relatively common but it is hard to sort past the sale sites.
 * 4) "Tinker" is, as I understand it, considered offensive and while I know it is a word that is used, it's rather like saying "Red Indian" -- just because some people in Europe think it's OK, American Indians still find it very offensive. So, where a nation calls the breed a "Tinker" we are stuck with it, but I think its use needs to be minimized.  One person's "politically correct" is another person's "don't be rude."
 * 5) American work appears to have done much to inspire folks back in the UK to get serious about breed preservation; so I am not sure there is a globalization issue here; just trace the history. Clearly, there are issues of social class and such wrapped up on the UK side... in the US, people just think they are cool, no baggage.
 * 6) Some breeding farm web sites and the small registries can be reliable sources, particularly for the "who did what when" questions.
 * 7) Need to clarify what COI is still in the current article, appears neutral to me
 * 8) Need to clarify what lack of globalization exists... with sourcing...


 * I originally wasn't in favour of a content fork as the American breed registries were entirely founded using imported Irish Cobs, but given that their standards differ so much I suppose it could be spun off. In that case, it would be imperative that each article prominently mentions the other, so that it's clear that the two are linked, as it would be easy for the reader to land on one looking for the other!
 * The term "Traditional Gypsy Cob" is sometimes used in the UK to refer to the Irish Cob, which is more often referred to as the "Irish Cob" or simply "Traditional Cob". It is used to distinguish it from the Welsh or Norman Cob. However, Gypsy Horse is highly uncommon, and Gypsy Vanner is considered a marketing ploy and not used in showing and breeding circles (in the UK).
 * As I explained at the start, a Coloured Cob is any Cob-type horse which is coloured. If an Irish Cob is coloured (as they frequently are), it is by definition a coloured cob, but this is not the breed name. It would be as ridiculous to include it as to add "Black-and-White Sheepdog" as an alternative name for the Border Collie.
 * The term "Tinker Horse" or "Tinker Cob" is, as far as I know, mainly used in the Netherlands, where it isn't considered culturally insensitive. Traveller can be as derogative as Tinker, Pavee is a better choice. The problem remains that whatever you call them, the Irish Travellers are more widely accepted as having developed the breed than the Roma, who the article favours.
 * A lot of the statements you make about the status of the breed in the British Isles pre-1996 are very false, and bordering on racist. The breed has been championed by horse people throughout the UK as an astounding show horse, eventer, hunter etc., for much longer than this article claims the breed has been established, and is probably the most popular mount for novice riders. How else could the British Army have sourced 65,000 Irish cobs during the First World War, not to mention the huge numbers exported to the Boer War (there are better sources, I just don't have them to hand), and frequently mentioned by British and Australian soldiers? It is so ubiquitous, however, that breeding has never been closely monitored, as there has never been need for it; the breed was never rare, and as far as can be seen, it never will be. I am aware that some breeders in the US have made claims that they were "rescuing" a breed, but these were the same people claiming they lived under bridges and behind shrubs, when the majority of them were at the time filling the boxes of comfortable equestrian centres; all sectors of the British horse world have been in contact with cobs. You should not be making potentially insensitive statements about how foreign nations treat horses before doing your research.
 * Involved organisations are clearly reliable sources when talking about the organisations themselves, however, in reference to the history of the breed, we have to be a bit more careful. WP:RS states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." Many of these registries are reliable to cite regarding the current status of the breed in their respective countries, however, unless the sources have clearly done proper research into the history of the breed, they shouldn't be used to verify that aspect. One exception is the GVHS: although they do claim that they have researched the history of the breed, most of the statements they make cannot be found from any other source (excluding paraphrases of their website), so they are a questionable source (again from WP:RS, "...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."). As for stud websites, the same caution should be applied, with the added aspect of the author being in a position of selling a product, so outlandish and romanticized statements are to be expected.
 * The COI, as far as I understand, was that the author was involved in the running of one or more registries. From my point of view, the impact this had on the article was that since there was no input from authors with a knowledge of the breed history and standards in other countries, it was written as if that registry's understanding of the breed history and breed standards were taken to be fact. This has led to a view of the breed as seen through the eyes of one or two US registries. There was an additional COI at the time the article was written, which seems to have had something to do with a dispute between registries, but this has been edited out over time.
 * The globalization issue is simply that the majority of statements made in the article are US-centric, for example the US standards are considered the rule with the native standards following (thanks to JLAN for fixing some of this), and the history is mostly sourced from US registries which do not indicate that they have done proper research of same. As an example, the FA article for the Gypsy Cob on the French Wikipedia has managed to keep a neutral tone; for example, here is a short summary of the "History > Acceptance as a breed" chapter:

"Acknowledgement of the Gypsy Cob is a recent phenomenon. In 1993, there was neither registry nor studbook; oral traditions of the Travellers were used to know the genealogy of the horses. Additionally, international equestrian organisations and researchers such as University of Oklahoma rarely recognised these horses as "real breeds" because of potential variations in type. However, in 2008, these horses were definitely defined as a "breed".

According to the Encyclopedia of the University of Oklahoma, published 1995, the Irish piebald was sold for very high prices. The EU forced a "normalization" faced with the popularity of these horses and large numbers of exports from the British Isles. The first step was the formation of a genetic and genealogical database. In 1998, the first Irish Cob studbook in Ireland was officially established... Ireland and England dispute the origin of the breed... The Irish Cob and Gypsy Cob are very similar going by standard and history, but since the end of the 20th century, slight distinctions have existed between the studbooks.

The first registered Gypsy Vanner was exported to the US from the British Isles in November 1996. The Swedish association was founded in 1998. In the US, the GCDHA was founded in 2002, and in the same year were the first 4 registrations to the French Irish Cob association, followed by studbooks in Australia and NZ. A stud-book is re-opened in Ireland in 2008, but some Irish horse breeds established in France associated themselves with the English Gypsy Cob Society. This opening allowed the association "France Irish Cob" to commence the process of establishment of the breed (in France). Both the English and Irish studbooks are recognized by the French equestrian institute..."


 * If it could be faulted, the above summary talks a bit too much about the French association (although, it is the French Wikipedia...). However, it is clear from even a quick glance that the breed originated in the British Isles, and some exports were made to other countries, where studbooks were established; it doesn't fall into the trap of assuming that because the first registry was the GVHS, the breed must have originated in the US. The current article gives the impression that the breed is more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything at all to disagree with in what you write,, so I've added a colon to indent the last paragraph a little further. It looks as if the Cheval Savoir source could actually be useful; if others agree, we could perhaps ask Tsaag if she has the full text of it. Meanwhile, just two thoughts:
 * do we have agreement to provisionally replace all occurrences of "Roma", "Romani" etc with "travelling people" until and unless we have unconfoundable evidence in reliable sources that it is actually the Roma that are being discussed?
 * if the article were to be split, it would be into Gypsy Cob and Irish Cob, per Mason (as cited above) and the Cheval Savoir source; the small numbers of these horses outside the British Isles would still only receive limited coverage, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, right?
 * Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, my take:
 * We absolutely do not have consensus to substitute "travellers" for Roma, Romani, Romanichal, or a similar term. While we are stuck with potentially offensive terms used by a national breed society, as in "Tinker horse"( or for that matter, "Gypsy horse"), there is no reason to use inflammatory language--  I see that Irish Travellers is an article name here, so presumably has been through the terminology wringer; but In the USA "Irish Traveler" most definitely is viewed perjoratively, as the term here basically refers to these folks:  .  But to determine what the people themselves wish to be called, I suggest we ask the folks at the Roma wikiproject to weigh in.  I realize there are probably many viewpoints, but we need a read current state of things.
 * Breed societies may have a penchant for glorified history, but that doesn't mean that they are to be thrown out wholesale, the proper approach is to find additional source materials to contrast and compare. The "best evidence" rule is sometimes useful here... and if a breed society is spewing horsepucky, then we probably need to address that controversy in the article too (I ran into this a lot when adding info on genetic diseases to some breed articles -- for example, the Appaloosa horse club used to claim that night blindness was caused by worming medication, until it was conclusively linked to the Lp gene...).  It's a line by line and case by case basis.
 * For example, we can research and answer the following questions: 1)  Were there formal breed registries prior to 1996 or were the claims of the Thompsons that these horses were mostly undocumented a valid point?  2)  Is there any real difference between the Irish Cob and the Gypsy Vanner beyond the developments in the last 20 years, and if so, what are they?  3)  How many other "coloured cobs" are there in other breeds and what is the source material to explain the terminology?  4)  Is the US breed genetically that much different from its British Isles counterparts?  Can these horses be traced to specific subgroups in the UK? (and so on...)
 * To the extent that the sourcing in the fr. wiki article clarifies the "Are the Irish Cob and the Gypsy horse basically the same critters?" question, great. But let's be sure.
 * I am seeing a lot of claims above that are not given sources. We need to look at the source material we have and this includes the various breed society pages.  Bottom line is simple:  WP:V.  fr.wiki is not a source for en.wiki, though its footnoted source materials may be.
 * Maybe sandbox the proposed Irish Cob article in someone's userspace; we may simply need to fix this article, not split it, but it will depend a lot on how much overlap we discover. There will be some overlap between the two articles, particularly in the history section, but that may be inevitable -- so yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the two articles would have to have considerable "cross-fertilization" if you will.
 * is affiliated with Cheval Savoir ( She can also email me an English translation of the article, most likely; the magazine is bilingual) and also is the lead editor on most of the breed articles on fr.wiki. I will ping her to join this discussion.  Much of her work spins off from the US articles, so there is a certain amount of circularity we must be aware of.
 * I do see a lot of UK sites using the term "Coloured Cob" as well as Irish Cob, and so that little hiccup should also be explained, somewhere.
 * I think the US breeders now prefer "Gypsy horse"; probably as a way to resolve assorted political spats over the "Cob" or "Vanner" thing. So I feel fairly strongly about not changing this article title (This is typical of American breed groups, someone gets in a spat with someone else and all of a sudden there are two registries where there were once one -- we do the same thing with religions...)
 * "The small numbers of these horses outside the British Isles"... Can't comment there, it's more a matter of popularity and sourcing, IMHO, the articles will be the size and weight that the sources take us ... the US numbers may be small, but the impact is huge, the breed is very popular here, far beyond what its population indicates.  if we just go by numbers, then the million-strong American Quarter Horse article would be a FA behemoth.  (Mason?  I'm not seeing it on this talk page, clarify?)

In short, my take is that I have no concerns about globalizing one way or the other. If this article is too US-centric, it's probably because of a lack of sourcing materials. If you can find more sources, particularly for the unsourced claims you've made, great, let's see them and discuss them. Montanabw (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to address each point in turn as it seems like the most efficient way of discussion!
 * I think you may be mistaking the Travellers for Roma. They are distinct ethnic groups which, up until roughly a century ago, weren't even in contact with each other. Irish Travellers have genetic features that place them as an insular Irish population, while the Roma are a continental Eurasian ethnicity, and both have very different cultures. Whereas both Irish Travellers and the Roma currently breed Cobs, there is dispute over which was the originator of the breed, so both should be mentioned in the article. As it stands, the Roma are almost exclusively mentioned - Travellers are not mentioned at all in the History section. Regarding names, it would certainly be worth asking WikiProject Roma for advice, as they seem to have been involved in the Irish Traveller page, especially if there was someone involved with travellers in some way. As a matter of interest, Pavee Point (one of the most prominent Traveller Rights groups) refer to them as "Travellers", however, members often refer to themselves as "Pavee" which I believe is the Cant word. A discussion of pejorative terms is at the bottom of this flyer . I had a quick look to see what the US traveller rights groups consider acceptable, but they don't appear to exist. (As an aside, just a note that repeatedly linking that article in Wikipedia does unfortunately increase its Google ranking!)
 * I agree on this point, breed registries etc. cannot be taken at face value, and the claims they make must be consistent with other sources. On the particular questions you raise,
 * 1) There do not appear to be formal breed registries prior to 1996. It is popularly known that the genealogies and breeding of the horses were closely followed orally in spite of a lack of centralised registration. This is an extremely difficult thing to cite reliably, due to the lack of academic interest in traveller culture in general.
 * 2) The term "Gypsy Vanner" has only existed in the past 20 years, so no.
 * 3) If we're talking registered horses, the Welsh Pony and Cob Society does not disallow Sabino or Blagdon (only Skewbald and Piebald are disallowed), nor do many other registries, resulting in horses such as Balnecroft King of Gold being eligible for registration. Otherwise, many coloured cobs are born without fitting any breed standard, and are sold as such. A coloured cob doesn't have to be an Irish Cob, and an Irish Cob doesn't have to be a coloured cob!
 * 4) In terms of genetics, Horse Sport Ireland (who manage the native Irish Cob studbook) now take DNA samples from all inspected stallions for future progeny verification, as apparently do a number of the European studbooks, and I believe that there is some interchange at a European level. However, this is a relatively new practice. Additionally, any of the US registries that claim to run a DNA database do not openly disseminate their results, so there is no way to compare the databases. Having said that, as the initial parent generation exported to the US were "from the British Isles", then there is obviously some genetic similarity with British horses as a whole, however with one of the foundation stallions for the US stock holding this self-issued pedigree, it's anyone's guess where the horses actually came from, so pinning down a subgroup is more than a push.
 * My sole point in translating the French article was, if the French wikipedia can tell the history of the Irish Cob from a neutral standpoint, why does the English wikipedia article tell it from a US standpoint? If we were to even directly translate what is in that article, we would have a more neutral POV. Some of their cited sources are certainly useful, but most importantly, they didn't just paraphrase the US registries' websites.
 * No comment on the sandboxing, I don't know how balanced collaboration can happen in a userspace...
 * Sure, go for it, more eyes are always a good thing!
 * A short note stating something along the lines of "They are often referred to as Coloured Cobs when coloured, however, the term does not exclusively denote an Irish Cob" should suffice.
 * If the article is to remain as one then I stick with the opinion that it should be called "Irish Cob"; if, however, consensus states that Irish Cob should be split out, then I don't have a particular preference for Gypsy Horse or Gypsy Cob, however, where the split occurs is an important issue. We have the British Isles' understanding of the breed, and we have US developments, but which of these two articles describe the European, Australian, NZ etc. animals? With just a quick glance at the registry names, European registries mainly favour Irish Cob (with a few Tinker horses), while the Australian and NZ registries use Gypsy Horse and Gypsy Cob respectively.
 * I am a little confused by the point you're trying to make. What is popularity, if not ownership of horses? If there are fewer horses in a country, why should the article on the horses give undue weight to the smaller population on the basis of its "popularity" in media etc.? The article should be about the animal, not how recognisable it is to a certain country's populace. They also had a huge popularity spurt in South Africa, but the country isn't even mentioned in the article!
 * I will provide sources whenever I add to the article, but the issue remains that the sources that are there are dubious in many cases...Wasechun tashunka (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have two comments.
 * If the name thing is that controversial, we could potentially name this "Gypsy Horse and Irish Cob" like Welsh Pony and Cob. (Which I believe was once 4 separate articles, but were merged because so much of the content overlapped.)
 * On popularity...eh, I know it shouldn't matter how many there are in a country versus their coverage here, but have you seen an American horse magazine? Fully half the breeder ads in the back are for Gypsy Horses or Friesians. The old American breeds like the Saddlebred are often not even advertised in print, much less the full page glossies the feathered horses get. As a result, Gypsy horses are more in front of people, get articles written about them, and become the "if I could afford it I'd buy it in a minute" breed for a lot of people. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , our Welsh Pony and Cob is at that title because that is the name of the breed (yes, there used to be a separate page for each of the four sections within the breed). But "Gypsy Horse and Irish Cob" is not the name of this one. I don't think that one will fly. Like, I favour moving this to Irish Cob because (a) it's Irish (b) it's a cob and (c, for what it's worth) there aren't any potentially offensive exonyms in that name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , as JLAN said, Welsh Pony and Cob is a special case, as, although there are four sections, they are considered to be one breed. Closer, maybe to what you meant, could have been the old Sumba and Sumbawa Pony article, but as they are separate breeds, this has been renamed Sumbawa Pony. Where there is a name dispute, one really has to be chosen over the other. Unfortunately, there doesn't to be a Wikipedia naming convention that will help us in this case. Maybe if we got some fresh eyes to pitch in on the issue, we might be closer to reaching a consensus. I have read a lot of American equine magazines over the years, although obviously ads vary a lot depending on the magazine topic (of course the reining magazines are full of QHs), there appears to be a large push to market the Gypsy Vanner at the moment and over the last few years (and it's always the "high-end" horses standing at stud that are advertised, more recreational horses, like Cobs in Britain, are relegated to the classifieds!). This doesn't mean that the breed is actually more popular, but more importantly even if it was, the article still has to reflect the entire history of the breed, not just the past 20 years. For example, the top 3 TB breeding countries last year were the USA, Australia and France, with Great Britain only breeding 9% of the world stock, but that article still has to reflect its British heritage as per WP:Recentism.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Since my contributions were "hogwash" and whatever other term you used, please find some other photos besides the ones I contributed to use. These are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th. I am sure these are hogwash also. Reference #62 should also be removed. SFGMary (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So I'm thought to have a conflict of interest eh? I began work on this article when it had simply been sitting for ages with nothing being done on it. Believe me, I am not making money on my horses and I'm pretty well retired now anyway. Not much of a conflict of interest. I hold a PhD (as well as 2 master's degrees), and not in squishy areas but in statistics, operations, research, English literature. I am well able to do research and to write in a dispassionate way. I have no interest in being some bigwig on Wikipedia. In return for what I thought was a contribution, I was insulted, my writing called hogwash and something else I've forgotten. Just-a-whatever, you have in particular been extremely rude. As I say, I won't make the mistake of making any sort of contribution to Wikipedia again, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either. 71.88.11.208 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And, frankly, I don't know what is so terribly wrong with the article. I am a sound researcher. I included everything that I know of that has been published. I know a great deal of other history that is anecdotal, and I actually sneaked that in even though it was unverified. If my skimming of the verbiage above is correct, the contribution of Irish breeders to the horse is the bone of contention. It most certainly existed--look at the names of the horses in the pedigrees! However, where is this published that Wikipedia can cite it? I would love to cite it. I have talked with Irish breeders who contend that the credit for the horse should go to Irish breeders and that the Romany in other parts of Great Britain simply obtained their horses from Irish breeders. A group of these breeders is extremely, dare I say, militant (?) about their contribution to the breed being unrecognized. I suspect there is a good deal of truth in this, but how do we prove it? The only source I know of is an extremely poorly recorded interview with Henry Connors, of which only a few words are discernible. However, I stand by this article because, to my knowledge, there is nothing else PUBLISHED that can be cited here to add to any of this. 71.88.11.208 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)