Talk:Horse/Archive 6

Language
The article controversially claims that horses "are anatomically designed" to escape predators. A more appropriate statement would be that horses have evolved or that horses are adapted to escape predators.96.246.68.195 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, horses did not evolve over millions of years, the world hasn't even been around that long

Scientific views
I do not wish to start an argument but evoution is a theory, not a fact. So by stating that horses evolved somewhat of millions of years ago is not factual. So it is not aproprate for an encyclopedia to state. If it's not removed within an hour I'll have it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.24.202 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider this. If you do remove it, then I will consider that to be vandalism, and I will revert it. If you persist in the removal of that information, then I will consider that to be disruptive behaviour, which I will report with the intention of having you blocked from further editing. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey 67... - it doesn't matter whether you believe evolution to be a fact or a fantasy, there are many references to support the content you want to remove. If you can find some reliable reference to the contrary, feel free to post it, but if your intent is to simply remove content you don't agree with, and to threaten other editors with a time-line for making your changes, you're probably in the wrong place.Bob98133 (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Carnivorous Horses
I added the following information:
 * In ancient times, Diomedes, the King of Thrace, kept four man-eating horses in his stables. Heracles tried to steal the abominations. Hercules, with the help of Abderus stole the horses. Heracles left his friend alone with the horses and the foul beasts quickly devoured Abderus. Hercules was so distraught over this that he fed Diomedes to his own horses as revenge.

And it was removed. I think this article (or somewhere, maybe an article on Famous Horses) need to mention the Carnivorous Horses of Diomedes as this is a well known example of a domestic animal being trained in a way that is not natural for the animal to behave. Could someone who agrees with me help me get a section on the horses added? I'm willing to clean it up a bit/find other examples. Thanks.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would guess that it was removed because legends are not a reliable source of factual information. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can have an article about Jesus I don't know why we can't have one on these horses. Sorry to offend anyone who is a Christian. Just an example.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is it a legend, it's also undue weight in this article. The article is about horses, in general. If it belonged anywhere, (and I don't think it does, because it's a legend) it would belong in the article about how horses are fed. Obviously, the most obvious place for the information is in the article about Diomedes. I fail to see how it adds anything to the understanding of horses to know that legends existed that they were once trained to eat people by a legendary person in ancient Greece. As a side note, there are more recent examples of horses, in extremis, eating flesh, without training, in modern times. Again, though, this is a piece of information that is very trivial, and would belong most likely in an article on the feeding habits of horses, not in the top level article on horses themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well Taken Ealdgyth! I understand your concerns about this and I will not try to add that information to this article because it is so specific. By the way, what sort of stories are there about horses eating people in recent times? Do you have a citation or something? That'd be really cool! Thanks!!!Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have Category:Mythological horses. Maybe Diomedes' critters need their own article.  We do have one on Gytrash, after all.  I personally have no info on real carnivorous horses, however.   Montanabw (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New To-Do List
Here are my thoughts on the next steps with this article:


 * Peer review? I can do this, just checking to make sure it's allright with everyone else. - Done.
 * Final reference check - Ealdgyth, I know you want the refs to Marguerite Henry's book out, anything else?
 * A reference formatting question, probably for Ealdgyth - There are quite a few references where we have both the author and the publisher listed as the same organization. I think I'm the one who did most of this, so I'm taking the blame on myself. My question is - can we remove the "author" information if what is listed is the same organization as is listed for publisher? IMO, it will make the refs easier to read...
 * Check the Chicago manual of style on how to handle organization-authored works. That's the closest to what our Wiki templates seem to be producing.  Sometimes you can omit "author."   Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one hidden comment on referencing left to take care of.
 * Would anyone have a problem with me archiving all of the GA review discussion above into its own archive? - Done.

Anything else? Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea to bring the article to peer review.
 * There is a slight problem with the references; right now they take up too much space. Can they be arranged in two columns? --Fish-Bird (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Fish-Bird. I'm kind of waiting for the other two main editors on this article (User:Ealdgyth and User:Montanabw) to weigh in on the above comments. Also, I've been a bit busy with other editing stuff and haven't gotten around to it. We always like to have new eyes on the article, though, so if you have other suggestions it would be great to hear them.  With regards to the reference formatting, removing the duplicate author/publisher (as I suggested above) will probably help with space issues, but I'm not going to do that unless I have the OK from Ealdgyth, who is our source specialist! At the moment, they are formatted to be listed in two columns - are you using Internet Explorer?  On some (maybe all?) versions of IE, references won't show up as multiple columns, even if they're formatted that way. Dana boomer (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am using Internet Explorer, but it's strange, on some pages I do see two-column formatting. I also think it might be a good idea to expand the "military uses" section, there's lots of material to talk about cavalry, but then the article is quite long already. What do you think? --Fish-Bird (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using is discouraged at FAC, because it sometimes breaks in some browsers. As far as the duplicate author/pub thing, sure, take the dup out (I usually take out the author). Yes, Henry needs to go, it's a juvenile work. Go ahead and archive. Sorry I missed this while I was on the road last weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that weirdness with the reflist 2 thing also. With Safari as a browser at home, it works, the version of IE on the Dells over at the college ignore it.  Do not know the solution, but agree it's a "thing."  If the FA gods care, whatever.  I don't.  FWIW.   Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @Fish-Bird: We are trying to add as little as possible to the article, because it's already pushing length limits. The military uses section is actually one where we have a really good supporting article, at Horses in warfare, so it is doubtful that you will gain consensus to add more to this section. Because this article is a general overview of an animal that has had tons of human interaction and tons of studies and research done on it, we have to leave out a lot of information about horses that is interesting, but not vital.  Most of this has been spun off into "child" articles, which can be accessed through the links that are at the top of most sections.
 * @Ealdgyth: OK, I didn't know that about the reflist2 function. What is recommended then? No columns at all? I'll start work on the other stuff, although probably slowly, with all of the other horse articles that are calling for attention right now. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll probably be most good at saying "whoa!" bad idea!  Totally in brushfire mode at the moment.   Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, I understand completely! I promise to start slow and not do anything major without dropping a note here for a couple of days first. Suffolk Punch and HiW are really my main priorities right at the moment, tweaking this and maybe playing with the dancing white horses some more are kind of on the back burner. Dana boomer (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping horse
There is a photo in commons at: Grey horse lying down in field.jpg Not sure if this is what you are seeking. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a number of sleeping horse photos, what we want here was a horse that is half-dozing standing up AND one that is lying down. I know of one other one than the one in the article now (the one used in the Pen article) if for some reason anyone has a problem with the existing photo. (I have no problem, but Dana tossed it, I think due to problems formatting the previous section, but maybe there is a copyright issue too, don't know. )   Montanabw (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mainly due to formatting, not copyright issues. I'll see what I can do to fix the formatting without removing the image... Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I removed some tangents from the lead. The first sentence defines "horse" as the species Equus caballus, not Equidae, so the lead should describe the species, not Equidae. Przewalski's Horse is not a member of Equus caballus, so that sentence goes too. Feral horses are too minor a topic for the lead. --Una Smith (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Details re horse breeds I moved to Horse breed. --Una Smith (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Dana boomer reverted all my contributions to the article, so we'll do this... --Una Smith (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1st para
Lead first paragraph, old version:

Proposed new version:

The new version is more in line with other articles about species in Equus, and the extraneous sentence about the evolution of Equidae is deleted. Equus caballus did not evolve until fairly recently, and Przewalski's Horse is not a member of E. caballus. --Una Smith (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. This is unnecesary.  We can change "Equidae" to "Equus (genus)|genus Equus" as that reflects the article reorganization done elsewhere.  The rest of the para is a proper intro per wiki MOS that summarizes what is to come in the article and as such should not be cut.  The Przewalski's horse IS a "horse" even if a different subspecies, and the taxonomic classification is irrelevant to a general info article.  Those who care can go to that article.  There is no need to include the number of "breeds," as there is no single governing body to determine what is or is not a "Breed," and we cannot source such data.  Some who define breeds as only those with a closed stud book might say there are only a couple hundred, those that include every crossbred with an association might designate 500.  Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd para
Lead second paragraph, old version:

New version:

... and at bottom of lead:

Respectfully, Una Smith (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, all the above material is part of the lead due to Wiki MOS for leads of GA articles. This is material that "foreshadows" the rest of the text.  The intro was carefully written to convey a summary of the rest of the article.  To cut it down makes it no longer a proper lead for a GA.   Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy and evolution
Most of the taxonomy and evolution section probably should be removed to other articles, because it concerns Equidae and Equus, not Equus caballus. Some new content can take its place: an explanation of the taxonomy of Equus caballus itself would be helpful. Also, some mention of phylogenetic studies within the species. --Una Smith (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, you probably make some decent points here, but please discuss it before making the changes. Why don't you sandbox here what you want to add and remove, and leave it up for discussion, before simply removed almost 15 kb of info? Also, you say info can be added it - please don't just say it should be and leave it at that - if you want something added, drop a mockup of it here on the talk page (with reliable sources) and give others a few days to discuss it. You know there are other active editors on the page here, so please try to work with them. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I second Dana's observations. This article is at GA status, and any significant changes must be done by consensus. Some of the discussion here is a spillover from the editing mess at the Equidae article and Template Equine, much of which is not in fact resolved. For now, it MIGHT be OK to change the link in the intro from Equidae to Equus (genus), due to the big article swap of those two articles, over there, but I think Dana needs to be the one to do the actual edits, because she is, at the moment, the primary editor on this page and knows the overall article the best.  The remaining issues about the Tarpan and Pzrewalski's are moot here, because they ARE horses, and this is a broad overview article about horses that serves as the launching point for all the other articles.   Montanabw (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we should probably focus on the content of the article first, then work on the lead later. Una, I realize that you have created the Horse breed article, basically by moving part of this article over there and adding no new information. Now that that is done, we could probably trim back some of this article but the wholesale removal will not work. Please sandbox here what you think the revised content should look like.
 * Montana, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Tarpan and Pzrewalski's horse issue, at least slightly. This is an article about, as it states first thing in the lead, Equus caballus. The Tarpan and Pzrewalski's are not equus caballus, if I understand the taxonomy right. Therefore, they should probably not get any more than a sentence or two at the most, possibly in a section describing equus caballus ' s relationship with other parts of the taxa. The main description should be done in the new Equus article. Since we have it, we might as well use it. Montana, I understand your point about this article being a jumping off point. That's why I would suggest a compromise of a sentence of two left behind. However, as I said above, an article about Equus caballus should really discuss only equus caballus, with only a minimal amount of information (i.e., they exist) about other taxa. However, Una, again, wholesale removals of information without leaving even a summary behind are not at all useful. If we do end up removing some information to the Equus and Horse breed articles, then the summary that is left behind should have the consensus of the Horse article editors, before the switch is made. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead reviewer of the most recent GA strongly recommended reorganizing the article before taking it to FAC. I agree, and am doing that.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop please. Please point out to me exactly where Malleus "strongly recommended" reorganizing the article before FAC. Also, there is no consensus on how the article is to be reorganized, so please do not make changes other than copyediting to the article before that consensus is reached. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Malleus Fatuorum on Talk:Horse/GA2: My main objection is that I'd like to see Taxonomy and evolution instead of Biology as the first section. and Well, I've given my view that I'd prefer to see the article structured a little differently, but this isn't FAC, so I'm not going to stick on the ordering of sections; that discussion can wait until FAC so far as I'm concerned.
 * Yes, he did say that. I had forgotten. However, he was not saying it had to be done, and just because he put forth an opinion doesn't mean that we have to do it. This needs more discussion, and perhaps, again, we should work on content before we start moving the sections of the article around and changing the lead. Please, as I've said before, sandbox the changes you want to make to the taxonomy, evolution, breeds and other sections, the rest of us will take a look and discuss, and then we'll decide. You have to work together with the rest of us on these horse articles, Una, rather than simply going about things unilaterally. This may take several days or a few weeks to work through - none of us have unlimited time to spend on WP and several of us have busy home/work/family lives. Just because we haven't responded to you right away does not give you the right to completely restructure the article or the entire project. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxing
If some editors of this page must sandbox, then I think it is only appropriate that all editors do so, including Montanabw and Dana boomer. --Una Smith (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, true. However, we don't really have things we want to change. You do. What are you requesting that we sandbox? Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can sandbox your reverts and any other changes you wish to make, Dana. Personally, I would rather work directly on the article, but as you insist I don't do that it seems only appropriate that you don't either.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Una. STOP NOW.  You are wreaking total havoc all across wikiproject equine.  You are acting without consensus and are systematically destroying the hard work of multiple editors.  Dana is one of the finest, best-natured editors on wikipedia and your personal attacks on her and on this article are totally uncalled for.   Montanabw (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse taxonomy discussion at wikiproject
I posted a bunch of thoughts about the taxonomy of the horses on the Wikiproject Equine here, because of its cross article scope. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence
I take objection to this sentence: "In the past, horses were considered unintelligent, with no abstract thinking ability, unable to generalize, and driven primarily by a herd mentality." ... as if in the past people were a bunch of morons, but now we know better. Bull. Anyone who's spent much time around horses knows they're intelligent, and people in the past spent much more time around horses than the average person today. Sure, we have studies now that prove the intelligence is specific ways, but I see no reason why people "in the past" wouldn't see the obvious whereas we smarter people today who aren't even around horses wouldn't be so quick to make stupid assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.192.177 (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says that people in the past considered horses to have been able to generalize and think abstractly, then please provide it and we will change the article accordingly. However, in the past, horses were mainly used as beasts of burden, and while they were often loved as pets, they were not often thought of as abstract thinkers. Would it be better if we changed it to something like "horses were often considered unintelligent"? Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'Disagree.' Personally I adore horses. I've worked with horses, I've cared for horses. But they are a mixed bag. It's impractical when people pass judgment on animals for their genetic, conduct and characteristics. Horses are a prey animal, pledge with it. They are essentially horse power as the psalmist writes: "God takes no delight in horses' power." Sometimes certain "inintelligent" animal will tolerate the burden they carried through human domestication. As a matter of fact, today we can domesticate almost every animal in earth like lions, whales, predators of Nature. I also take objection to this sentence: "In the past, horses were considered unintelligent, with no abstract thinking ability, unable to generalize, and driven primarily by a herd mentality." The version presented by Dana sounds better - "often considered unintelligent" and more appropriate. --Chris Cohen (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nursing and weaning
It's partially addressed in the section w/ horse names for different ages/sex, etc., but there really ought to be something in the Reproduction and Development section about the nursing and weaning habits of horses. To what degree to foals begin to eat other food before they are fully weaned? -- Blueguy 65.0.192.177 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be needed to add a small bit of this info into the article, although I'm not really convinced of that. This is an overview article, and it is already pushing length guidelines and really needs to be trimmed more than expanded. The best place for detailed information on foal diets would probably be in the Horse breeding article or a sub-article of that one, rather than here in the main horse article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Domestication
I changed the sentence regarding domestication, from "4000BC" to "3500-4000BC" which brings it in line with the Domestication of the Horse article. Also I added "Kazakhstan" as a country with some of the earliest evidence of domestication. This comes from an interview on the CBC science show "Quirks and Quarks" with a researcher at U. of Exeter in England. This researcher states that the earliest evidence of domestication was found in Kazakhstan at around 3500 BC. One can listen to the podcast at http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/podcast.html, the 2009-03-09 show. Zatoichi26 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that, however, we really do need a better source than a podcast! (I admit to using printed transcripts at times, though, LOL!)  Montanabw (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Colors and Markings
The last sentence in this paragraph is erroneous. Albinism can occur in any animal incuding horses. It is the White gene is associated with a Fatal mutation of the digestive system in horses. This is known as Lethal White Syndrome. This is a misinterpretation in the article since the source (35) is correct on the white gene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_white_syndrome http://www.mini-horse.org/health_care_albino.html sorry for linking in this have not edited before : )24.26.222.80 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We will take a look at that phrasing and bring it in line with the LWS article. The point, however, is that there are no living albino horses.  Montanabw (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Status... etc.
Okay, where are we on this? Did we do the Peer Review comments? Are we ready to (gasp) think about FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see:
 * PR didn't get done - it had just gotten comments when Una jumped in trying to get the article restructured again. The comments were good, and should definitely be taken seriously, although from my (admittedly somewhat faulty) memory, they weren't anything serious.
 * We might want to have Kim take a look over the evolution section to make sure that's up to par and the references are decent. Also possibly making sure that it is sufficiently focused on Equus ferus caballus as opposed to the entire Equus genus or Equidae family.
 * There are still some iffy refs for FAC - the Henry refs are still included, for one.
 * We may want to take a look at trimming the breed section a bit, since we now have Horse breed, which is substantially a copy and paste of the info from this article.
 * Need someone to take a good look over the image licensing - Awadewit perhaps?


 * Just a few thoughts. I don't know about a push to FAC right now - Montana seems to be rather busy, and I'm currently on the road and won't have reliable/consistent internet access when I get to my destination. If you want to be the main push I'll stand on the sidelines and cheer, but I have access to neither my books or a library, so probably won't be much of a help with anything other than c/e and ref formatting :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remind me when you'll be home again? I've slept since you told us... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Errr...October-ish? Maybe as late as December. I sent you and Montana an e-mail with the details a couple weeks ago... Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you did (grins) I've slept since then... Urf. Okies, then I'll keep plugging away at this as I can, but plan on being worked when you get home! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of in the "plug away while we can" camp. After the big doings elsewhere on wiki, I'm just exhausted.  I also am definitely in the real world big time for the next two weeks so at most on vandal patrol here, barring disasters.  I agree that what we can clean up we should clean up as we can, but no energy here for a FA push at the moment.  Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy etc.
I will have a look at it, but not before somewhere next week. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you very much in advance, and whenever you have the time. Between non-foaling mares keeping me on foal watch and a new mare on the property, there is no rush on this. Thanks much! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I had a look at the sections evolution and domestication. I rearranged it a bit to what I think is a more logical order. In general, the evolution and taxonomy piece is in pretty good shape. There are a few current chnages that needs attention in the evoution section, but that is not major. The domestication section is a different story. The four foundations theory has now been tested formally, and it is now confirmed that the theory is not valid. (Sorry Montana). I think it is worth mentioning it as a historical idea, and rewrite that section to reflect the current day insights. I will see if I can do that in the coming weeks. I have all the references floating around, so that should not be a difficult thing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you so much Kim, I know I can handle most of the "practical" stuff, but taxonomy is beyond me. My last biology class was in 8th grade (it should be noted that my child is now in that grade...) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We can rename or rephrase, but people WILL inevitably as the "what about mules and donkeys?" question if we don't have SOMETHING in there about them. Montanabw (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Never mind, it wasn't removed, I just missed it in reviewing the edit. My bad. Montanabw (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is some evidence that the domestic horse may have speciated from Equus ferus since the time of its domestication. If indeed it did speciate, that would make it no longer Equus ferus caballus, but an independent species Equus caballus. -Signed, The Mysterious El Willstro
 * Nope, they still interbreed easily. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So do any two species in the same genus. Are we sure the offspring aren't sterile? I guess I just know what I was taught. -The Mysterious El Willstro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.63.58 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Species within a genus not always can interbreed. The subspecies of the horse can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, despite that the domestic horse has a different chromosome number than the Prewalski horse. But the subspecies status is based on much more than just this. Phylogenetically, the prewalski horse as well as the Tarpan (DNA extracted from ancient bones pre domestication) are well mixed with the domestic horse, a issue that actually even makes it doubtfull whether the three subspecies should be recognized as genetically, it is one big mixture. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how that works out. If the variety (subspecies) names are dropped altogether, which it sounds like they should be as there are no true varieties within this species, I kind of hope they call the whole thing Equus caballus rather than Equus ferus. For one thing, I was taught Equus caballus and have seen it on biology-related sites that are considered much more official than Wiki, but more importantly feral (for which the adjective in Latin is "ferus," not to be confused with the noun for iron which is spelled slightly differently) horses are a minority of the population. Besides, most members of Equus africanus, an entirely separate species which obviously could not be given the same species epithet, could be accurately described as feral if not wild. The same could probably be said for some members of Equus asinus. Then again, that is purely a matter of semantics. -The Mysterious El Willstro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.177.35 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I first saw the term equus caballus in the 1960s, and colloquially, it is still commonly seen. Being common shorthand or the historic use doesn't mean that taxonomists are happy about it or that it's perfectly correct.  (Sort of like "Frisco" for San Francisco, I suppose) I suppose even a lot of zoologists or biologists may not be up on the latest nuances in taxonomic classification, which is a specialty.  And, this topic was just debated completely to death a few months ago.  The taxonomists amongst us (I am not one) had to explain to the rest of us (like me) about how it all works.  I too found equus ferus caballus quite counterintuitive and confusing, but when one also looks at the current way that taxonomic classification is being done, it appears to be the "correct" way to classify even the domestic horse.  When or if scientific consensus changes, we can also change teh article here, but for now, I'm comfortable with Kim's analysis and believe that it is properly verifiable and not original research.  And FYI, the offspring of horses (however classified) and members of equus asinus are, in fact, usually sterile (with the occasional exception)   Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming of animal species is governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (The Code), published by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Equus caballus was the first described horse species, Equus ferus was described later. If two names are available for the same species, the oldest name should be used. However, the ICZN can rule that it overrules its own rules and in that, based on the arguments presented to them, decided a few years ago that names of wild species have priority over domesticated species names. And therefore, you can find a lot of places still using caballus as the species name. Unfortunately, many non-scientists prefer the name and will keep using it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So is Equus ferus caballus the least confusing way to do it here in wikiland so as to avoid endless edit wars yet stay somewhere within the realm of correct?? And yes, no one will give up cabllus.  Just like everyone will forever say "velcro" and not "hook and loop fastener"!  LOL!  Ah, so if ICZN can overrule its rules, I guess we'll just do it their way and then change it again in five years when they say to do it differently, eh?  And of course, there are no politics involved, right?   LOL!!!   Montanabw (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging spree
I've gone through and tagged all the deadlinks and the possibly unreliable sources. Some I've tagged may be salvagable, but they are going to be considered dodgy without some sort of rationale. I sourced what I could as I went through, we're making progress. Now to get rid of the Henry refs! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall, I'm Ok with the cleanup and support finding better sources for the material that's in there. (But what is the problem with the source saying horsehair is used for violin bows??)  In the places where Henry is a second ref, I guess OK to toss it.  But for the rest, if her content is accurate, my question is if "a" source is better than no source for now.  Also curious the concern with the Institute for Ancient equestrian studies other than it being a web site... but the rest, yeah.  I'm groovy with the tags, for the most part.   Montanabw (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Henry's work is a children's work and let's face it, it's 40 years old, at least. The horsehair one is ... how do we know they are experts? We can source that information from a lot of places, better to have a non-commercial site to back it up. And the "institute" ... is this a real institute or is it a "backyard institute" that someone set up to promote their own pet theories? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what drives me crazy about wikipedia and the horse articles. You aren't entirely wrong, and it's fair to verify some of these things, but in other cases, (violin bows), it just drives me totally nuts to source to a peer-reviewed journal for the blatently obvious.  I mean, pick up a violin bow and look at it!  Oh wait, that's OR.   :-P  As a historian, I find nothing inherently wrong with a 40 year old work if the information has not been superceded.  Sometimes juvenile works can be valuable (where else will anyone even care to discuss that George Washington actually did NOT chop down the cherry tree?  LOL!) Henry was about the only author to write about equine history for a mainstream audience for 30 years and one of the only such writers to discuss la brida and la jineta riding styles until Bennett published her book in 1998. (At least that I found) My point is that there is verifiability and then there is impeachable verifiability.  I have no objection to finding better sources for things when they can be found, but I have been repeatedly frustrated to see good, correct material removed from articles because one cannot find an unimpeachable source.  Yes, I'm mostly just  whining.  Proceed apace...    Montanabw (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We didn't have to find a peer-reviewed journal, just a published work that's at least had some fact checking. There are some people who object bitterly to ANY use of commercial sources for information. They don't like using Amazon for things like book releases or for DVD releases. I've managed to replace the Henry, and I wasn't planning on removing anything unless it was hopeless to find the information. The heraldry stuff, I have a book that covers that, but it's still in a box.. we need to replace some dead links, and just a few more "iffy" spots, and probably should update some of the sections to reflect the much improved sub-articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with the changes. And agree.   Drop a note to Gwinva on the heraldry stuff, she's our resident expert on that sort of thing and not scared of us crazy horse people! LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitions...
Since we now have a great glossary being worked on, perhaps we can cut back on the number of definitions in this article? I'm fine with keeping the "big" ones, but some of the lesser can probably be listed in the glossary article. Does that sound good? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good idea.Cgoodwin (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can just add a link to the glossary.  Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tibeten itty-bitty cutie ponies
I put a "dubious" tag on the claim that these little ponies being truly wild as the CNN article cited in the paragraph states that they are used as pack and riding animals by the locals, thus cannot be "wild" and at best are semi-feral if they have currently domesticated members. I see they are also listed at List of megafauna discovered in modern times as "status unclear." For more on the region, I found this. If someone is looking for the middle of Nowhere, I think we have a locate on it! Also, it appears the area is spelled "Riwoche" (or to be even more precise, Riwoqê) not "Rioche," and I corrected that. The ethnic people might also be Khampa, not Khamba as the CNN article spelled it, wiki references both, and absent more info, I'm not going to go off the deep end defending either. It's a cool tidbit, no matter how you look at it, and if DNA links to the Przewalski or Tarpan, then double cool. I suspect, however, that they are probably just an isolated population of Tibetan pony. Still cute, though. We ought to add an article to our wiki list about them. Anyone game? Riwoche horse (what the other wiki article calls them) or Riwoche pony. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we have two refs for them, the CNN story and the Dohner, who is from 2001 and still gives the "could be wild" thing for them. I've not turned anything else up. Dohner spells it Rioche, CNN does the Riwoche thing, so until we get a third source, I'm not sure on the spelling (Dohner's published by Yale University Press, so I tend to trust them a bit more.. honestly.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a serious case of undue weight going on. Someone somewhere speculated because of a superficial resemblance that a horse population might be wild. That by itself is enough to have the horse lovers go though the roof. So, I suggest we cut the piece out all together because of undue weight given to a speculation. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the same content into the wild horse article because no matter what we do here, it is definitely relevant there, and kind of interesting. CNN says simultaneously that they could be "wild" and that the local villagers use them for riding and pack animals. If they've been domesticated at all, ever, that pretty much defeats the "wild" argument ab initio.  But I just LOVE what news reporters do to horse stories...they know squat and wouldn't recognize "feral" if it bit them in the butt!  :-P  For spelling, though, I'd take CNN for more geographical accuracy, and that's probably another good reason to keep that spelling and use a piped link.   I Googled "Rioche," and found zero place names anywhere in Asia with that spelling, (seems to be a last name, possibly French?) so that was another reason I went with CNN instead of using Riwoqê, though that's clearly another spelling for the place.  As for the rest, I have no problem having a little bit about it here, but maybe we can cut it down to a sentence.  The find was 14 years ago, and while it sounds tough to get to Riwoche, the absence of definitive DNA evidence after this long does make me wonder. I guess my thinking is that if Kim can find anything in her scientific sources to clarify the matter more, that would be ideal.  Kim, just so you know, this is an FA push going on with this article, so we are trying to find sources for everything.  Montanabw (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More on these critters: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/world/a-stone-age-horse-still-roams-a-tibetan-plateau.html Kim, they mention more names of the scientists here.  Any chance of finding any peer-reviewed literature on these tests they allegedly were going to run?  I think we have fodder for two articles, one on these and another on a breed called the Nangchen horse or pony, another isolated genetic strain (though that one clearly domesticated).  Ealdgyth, this is a VERY COOL find!   Montanabw (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's up: Riwoche horse. Next up: Nangchen horse. Both stubs. Have at em! Montanabw (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ANd in the process, I found the actual guy who found them...redid some citations and I think the relevant point here is actually that they hypothesize that these could be a "living fossil" or a missing link. See what I did, maybe it works? Montanabw (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarpan...
I checked out the Tarpan article, and the 1876 date was unsupported by the reference at the end of its paragraph, so I've changed out to the given information in Dohner, which is at least citable. So now the two articles aren't in conflict any more. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue arises from the dispute whether the last Tarpan in the Russian zoo was actually a Tarpan, as it has obvious characteristics of domesticated horse like long manes. This is an unresiolved issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind mentioning that there are other dates, but the 1876 date was totally unsourced. Find a source, we'll give both dates here and discuss the controversy briefly in a footnote and discuss it fully over at Tarpan, but we can't have unsourced information which conflicts with sourcable information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Ealdgyth's point that we need to properly source and the probability Kim raised that the later date is somewhat problematic.  But I see no problem keeping the later, sourced date there until a better source is found.  This is one of those strengths and weaknesses of wikipedia.  Yes, there's a source.  But maybe the source is not as accurate as it could be.  And I lack the answer to this one, so if anyone else can improve, go for it. Montanabw (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Units
For an unknown reason article's main system of units is U.S. Customary which contradicts WP:UNIT. IMO this should be fixed ASAP. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because the main authors are in North America. Also, horse height is traditionally measured in hands, which is based on inches, which makes using the inches equivalent first kinda make sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But, well, hand is almos equal to 10 cm and not all readers are from US... SkyBonTalk/Contributions 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... and if you're so worried about it, perhaps you might fix it yourself? I'm not objecting, you seemed to be asking why it was and then demanding it be changed. Note that the hand conversions are handled by a template, so it might be good to consider that the hand conversions on some articles need to give inches first. Another concern with the hands conversion is that traditionally horses are measured in hands, so it's not that the main system is US customary, it's that ALL heights of horses should be given in hands, then converted to both inches and cm. Certainly, you're welcome to transform the weights/etc, but be careful with the hands conversions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto here. Please leave the hands conversions!  Do anything you want but it took what, two years for someone to find a template genius that could make tht thing work? 350+ horse breed articles depend on it!  =:-O    Montanabw (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditions, damn'em... SkyBonTalk/Contributions 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! Would take a braver person than I to tangle with traditional measurements, like hands, and, say the nautical mile, aka "knots."   Montanabw (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main page...
Moving this from the main page to preserve it for a bit.

Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A ridgling or "rig" is a male horse which has an undescended testicle or is improperly castrated. If both testicles are not descended, the horse may appear to be a gelding, but will still behave like a stallion.

Pictures...
Okay, reviewing the pictures...
 * File:Mangalarga Marchador.jpg this image may have problems in that it doesn't say that the photographer has actually released the picture for free distribution. Given how long ago it was uploaded, we might be better off picking another lead image.
 * File:Karel van Gaasbeek.JPG doesn't give any indication that it was released or who took it. Probably should replace.
 * File:Mesohippus.jpg My problem with this one is that if it's Public Domain (which it appears to be) it's probably also way outdated (from before 1923) surely ideas on how mesohippus looked have changed in almost 90 years? Perhaps a more recent image, maybe of a fossil?
 * File:2003horse.PNG Can we not find a more recent image or something for this? 2003 was a while ago... also, i'm not quite sure how this type of map works, why are there certain numbers of circles in each country?

For the size of the article, this is a pretty small list of problem images, I'm impressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, here's my take:
 * 1) It will be tough to replace the lead image, I looked long and hard for a generic "horse" that was classy and attractive but did not jump out as being of any particular breed.  The image was in constant flux until this one was inserted.  I'd want to see if a way to salvage it unless we can find something that is of superior quality but still "generic breed" looking
 * 2) OK.  The previous image didn't work because it was mislabeled as a Belgian, when it was a horse IN Belgium.  As long any new image looks like a draft horse, whatever works.
 * 3) Yeah, but it's SOOOO cute! I'd look to see what else there is, but if there aren't substantial changes, no reason to toss due to age alone.
 * 4) It is tagged as a problem image.  The dots are population references, indicating numbers and density. That's not a problem, but it may have reliability problems, and I see no real use for it.  OK with me to toss entirely.   Montanabw (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible new photos...

 * File:Making Hay the Old-fashioned way.jpg
 * File:Etalon race ardennaise 1.jpg
 * May be a good one to replace the other draft horse.


 * File:Flehmendes Pferd 32 c.jpg
 * Amusing, but where? (Different image of flehmen response at, I think, horse behavior


 * File:Attelage en double paire.jpg
 * Lovely image


 * File:Ct3.jpg
 * Cool, but better than what's here?


 * File:Friesian Stallion.jpg
 * Friesian images overdone, I see no reason to use this one for anything in particular


 * File:Friesian Horse Side View 1.jpg
 * Ditto, and I don't care much for the build of the horse


 * File:Free Willy Hackney Road Pony.jpg
 * May not be a free image, looks pro, check. Cool image.


 * File:Maestoso Basowizza & Oberbereiter Hausberger.jpg
 * This guy (Hausberger) actually occasionally edits on wikipedia. For real. May present a COI problem down the road. Cool image though. May not be free. Check.


 * File:Horse 2 (PSF).png
 * File:Win win relationship.JPG
 * This one is the best of the itchy horse photos, and I think is already in horse behavior.


 * File:Pferde knabbern.JPG
 * File:Pferdesandbad.JPG
 * Cute, but same question of horse behavior images being overdone in the main article.


 * File:HorseKick.jpg
 * Cute, but where and for what? Again, not sure we need a lot of behavior images, though this one might do well being added to horse behavior


 * File:Two and a half hours old.jpg
 * Cute but atypical. Maybe of interest in the horse breeding article, given the rarity of twins...


 * File:New Forest Pony with Foal.jpg
 * I hate using photos of blatently skinny nursing mares.


 * File:Farmer plowing.jpg
 * I've always liked this image.


 * File:Mare milking Suusamyr.jpg
 * This is a great LOL! It is tempting to find a place for it!  Cute!


 * File:ARS sheep herding.jpg
 * More sheep than horse. And we get enough guff about the sheep thing out here!  LOL!


 * File:Hoof bottom view.jpg
 * Nice image if there's a place for it


 * File:Horseevolution.png
 * This image is in the Evolution article, I'm not particularly fond of it, and more detailed images seem better in the other article


 * File:Hyracotherium skeleton.JPG
 * Interesting. I like the color drawing better, but this does have potential.


 * File:SilverHorseOrdos4-1BCE.JPG
 * Cute knicknack, but not old enough to be of any particular significance. Standard of Ur or something way old might be better, depending on location.

Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where, why, when? Some are cool, just don't want them to be random or added for the sake of adding.  My comments above.  I think that we want to be careful not to overdo images unless there is a good reason to add them.   Montanabw (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm concerned about internet loading speeds with too many photos for people with slower internet connections. It already takes me a couple seconds to load this article and I have broadband. Airplaneman  talk 01:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Size and measurement section
Hi guys. The size and measurement section is currrently cluttered, and presents information in an discontiguous manner.

I've tried sorting it out, but have apparently broken a citation in the process. Any help fixing the citation would be great! InternetMeme (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just that it managed to break a reference, it's that short one-two sentence paragraphs are very choppy prose and hard for readers to read. It's better to keep paragraphs combined whenever possible, and it isn't discontiquous to combine how the height is measured with what units are used to measure. Personally, I didn't like the breaking down of the information into even smaller subheadings, but that remains now. The only thing I did in my last revert was combine the two paragraphs on measurement into one to avoid the problem with the short paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a whack at this section and it seems to do better with a whole different tack (if you will pardon the pun). Basically it was the pony stuff bogging things down, so I moved it into its own subsection and put all the general info up at the top.  I think it makes things clearer, and allows for more info explaining the wild world of measuring ponies, which is more complicated than appears at first glance (I could find even more different definitions, which I spared y'all.) Oh, and mm not used for measuring horses at all; in Europe where metric is used, they measure in cm.   Montanabw (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Whacks Montana) SOURCES! NOW! You've left a whole paragraph unsourced! Get thee to thy books! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys!

I think there is a more fundamental issue in play here. I get the impression that Ealdgyth is more of a literary type of person, where I (InternetMeme) am more of a scientific type of person. I've spent a bunch of time reading science textbooks, and am more familiar with that style of information presentation, and Ealdgyth possibly reads more history and literature, and is more familiar with that style. These differences exhibit themselves in our style of writing.

Science textbooks make great use of detailed headings and sub-headings and bullet-points. They often break down information into concise sentences, some of which form key premises, and are therefore presented as lone paragraphs. They also go to great lengths to present information in a clearly-defined logical sequence, that builds on previous premises.

As you can probably imagine, this is how I write by nature. While it's great for presenting scientific-type information, such as measurements and conversions, I may know bugger all about how to write historic essays or poetic prose, and have a tendency to make too many paragraphs.

In this article about horses, the only bit I'm probably qualified to really improve is the "Size and measurement" section. However, I think I can do a good job of that one bit, and that by employing a more scientific style, the readability of the section will be greatly improved, and readers will be able to assimilate the information faster.

On a side note, given that this article gets around 5,000 views per day, there are probably at least 250 people reading the "Size and measurement" section per day. If we save each person 30 seconds learning the information, then we've saved two man-hours per day. Assuming the average wage is $15, then we've indirectly saved $30 per day : ) InternetMeme (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We are aiming at FAC, however, where a more literary flowing prose style is the aim. I really am aiming for that, thus the desire to avoid too many small paragraphs, in order to stay with the style of the rest of the article. Not only are short choppy sentences and paragraphs hard to read, it would stick out like a sore thumb against the rest of the article, which is written much less bullet point and short paragraphs, but longer more literary paragraphs. Note that I did not do anything other than combine paragraphs back up. Montana added and rearranged last night. I agree a bit more information might be helpful, but this is, after all, a pretty simple bit of jargon to be explained. It's not that hard to grasp that you measure horses from the ground to the withers, and that the traditonal unit of measurement is the hand. And that horses vary widely in size and that, except in a few breeds, ponies are horses under 14.2 hh. Note that I'm not arguing with the introduction of subheads or anything, I just don't see the point of breaking a six sentence paragraph into two paragraphs, especially when the information is pretty much all the same subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Ealdgyth on this. Although I would agree with InternetMeme that in most cases in the real world scientific information should be presented in short chunks for easy assimilation by the reader/viewer, this is Wikipedia, and information needs to be presented in a more flowing format. Bullet points and short paragraphs are discouraged, especially at FAC, which is where this article will eventually end up (hopefully!). Basically, easy assimilation is good; short paragraphs and choppy prose are not. Dana boomer (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three completely separate and unrelated subjects in the size and measurement section: 1) The point on a horse's body at which we take a height measurement. 2) The near-obsolete units we happen to still use to measure horses. 3) The various sizes of different horse breeds.

Any one of these subjects could exist independently of the other two; they are only related by coincidence. It is a pretty novice practice to intermingle these three subjects, and reasonably confusing to lump them into the same paragraph.

I agree that large paragraphs are easier to read, but these three things can't logically be concatenated further. InternetMeme (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Meme, we have been over this before and there is a longstanding consensus on this issue. I think your paragraph splits and slight rewording did improve clarity, and thank you for that, but the subheading splits are not that helpful. The topic deals with size in all its nuances, no need to create excessive subheaders in the TOC which is already very long.  Montanabw (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair call. I think your edits maintain the gist of how I was trying to explain the measurement section. I like it. InternetMeme (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreement! Hooray!  Thanks for your work on this!   Montanabw (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
(total change of sub-topic here) Dana, think you can source out the stuff Montana wrote? RL is incredibly busy for me until the weekend, and I just don't have time to dig out books and do a sourcing run... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean the second paragraph of the size subsection? I've taken a run through the page history, and it looks like this has been unsourced for a while, and wasn't a result of Montana's edits. I'll try to take a run at sourcing it later (and doing some formatting tweaks on the other references that were added to the section) and see how far I get. I'll also try to look at some of the other references that are marked as needing work - I've been meaning to do that for a while now... *wanders off muttering about moving and housework* Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished referencing that paragraph and formatting the other refs in that section. I've also replaced a couple of the unreliable refs later in the article, and will work on some more later. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Age
'UK .. less than five years old .. US .. four years old and younger'

Is there a difference? An animal is N years old for twelve months, surely. The variation of terms ('age of', 'years old') in that section may be literarily satisfying but it obscures the meaning.

--86.26.7.36 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)