Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 6

Missing content
Ferghana horse is not mentioned in this article but probably should be. --Una Smith (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Horse archer is missing, and I'd have thought mongol bow would be there too and less significantly but possibly still connected to the subject ankle breakers and phalanx might be referenced as defensive tactics against cavalry (good and bad depending upon disposition of troops obviously. EdwardLane (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything added must be properly researched and sourced. There is only a little here on Japanese archers.  I would be open to appropriate, well-sourced expansion, but keep in mind that this is an article about the animals, not tools or weaponry, and to get too bogged down in tactics is beyond the scope.  To the extent that we could add info on the types of horses good for archery or the technical innovations to make a bow useable on horses, perhaps. Open to some sources and ideas.  Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on image content
I'd like to remind both editors engaged in editwarring at the current time to take the dispute to this talkspace. I'd be glad to help if I can. Welcome, new User:Moustachioed Womanizer. User:Ealdgyth, would you care to engage here? BusterD (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted .. once. Kindly check the edit history a bit more closely. MontanaBW also reverted ... once. If the image is put in a third time by Moustachioed Womanaizer, I'm pretty sure that editor would be edit warring.  I'm open to replacement by another image, but not an image where the fact that the horses are engaged in warfare is impossible to make out at even 400 pixels wide. THat's one reason the jousting picture was chosen .. it gets the point of horses in warfare across quite well. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually... he's replaced the image a THIRD time! But yet, somehow *I* get called on the carpet??? Reverting against two editors isn't exactly very cool... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that read overbold. I was trying to courteous to the new user. I'll report the 4RR violation by User:Moustachioed Womanizer. BusterD (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the user is actually only in 2RR. I'll still warn. BusterD (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The image in the article has been stable for years. It is the burden of people trying to add NEW material to prove it is needed.  Here we appear to have people who have never edited this article before suddenly inserting low-quality images without discussion. This is not an edit war, this is editing against consensus. If there are nominees for a new and better image, the place to discuss is here, not by reverting images on the article.   Montanabw (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The image is not an image of "Horses in warfare", jousting is not warfare and how long an image has been used is not a rational argument for keeping it. There is absolutely no requirement that an editor has to have made edits to an article previously in order to be taken seriously. The editor who removed the image had every right to remove the image as it does not represent the subject of the article. It is the burden of the people who for some reason are trying to keep an image that has nothing to do with the subject of the article to explain why they think this image is any better than another image. No one OWNS this article no matter how much editing they have done here, once they edit it is public property, you have to step back and decide if the edit is within the scope of the article, is it referenced, etc, its not about whether or not the editor has or has nor edited the article before or if you PERSONALLY do not like or agree with the edit, its about if the edit adds VALID information to the article and in this case the current image does not fit that criteria and the editor had every right to replace the image. At that point if the replacement image is contested thats when it should be discussed in the talk page, the editor who keeps reverting back to an image that has nothing to do with "Horses in warfare" is WRONGSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Samurai, you missed the point. Adding your own POV to an issue (yet more Japanese stuff) inflames the problem, not cools it.  When there are issues, the article needs to remain at its last "stable" version (pardon the pun) and the issue discussed at the talk page.  See WP:BRD for the general guideline.  Being "wrong" is a relative term.  If you want to help, then propose several representative images that are better -- and a group image of multiple animals in battle is not ideal because it looks like a blur on small monitors. For a lead image, a single, clear image is preferable.    Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Montanabw "yet more Japanese stuff", so you obviously have some sort of problem with information from other cultures being added included in articles because I see VERY LITTLE information on "JAPANESE STUFF" in this article which is a little suspect considering that the Japanese and samurai had over a thousand years of history using HORSES IN WARFARE. There are 15 images of European or Western horses in warfare throughout the article and huge amount of the text devoted to European and or Western information and only a few sentences on the Japanese and or samurai use of horses in warfare. You have already been warned about reverting edits you do not agree with very recently on the saddle article [] "Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of whatever other steps you have taken. Follow dispute resolution from square one. Regards, causa sui" and yet you continue to keep doing exactly that all the while insisting that you are an expert on Wikipedia policy. It seems like your POV is the only one you consider to be right. An image that does not represent the subject of the article is not acceptable and is a candidate for removal. You may have an "OWNERSHIP" problemSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't meant to be rude and I clearly explained my reverts in the comment box. It seems obvious to me and difficult to deny that the first image is just out of the topic: jousting is a sport, it is not warfare. I replaced that image with a picture representing diverse actions of cavalry (charge against an artillery battery and a counter-charge), numerous different uniforms from different nations and various cavalry role (heavy cavalry, line cavalry, light cavalry, limber team, staff). As this image was supposedly too small (remember that images are clickable ...), I placed a detail of the previous painting where horses are visible at first glance. So what's the problem now? I don't understand ... I'm open to other pictures, but why not this one (see right). Moustachioed Womanizer (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be obvious to any "impartial" observer that this image is much more appropriate than a jousting image for an article titled "Horses in warfare"Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see a close-up of something, something that grabs attention. While jousting isn't exactly warfare, it's not exactly a "game" during the period of its development either. And the image was discussed in the past and it's quite good at capturing attention. Something simple and without a lot of distracting detail is what is needed at the beginning of an article, especially one that has plenty of paintings of battles in the body of the article. I'm open to other suggestions, but like it or not, lots of readers DO think that jousting is part of warfare. I'm open to other suggestions, but I do not find the crowded battle picture to adequately convey the concept of horses in warfare nearly as well as the jousting image. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not create a category on commons titles "Horses in warfare" and everyone interested can add a selection images they think suitable to that category and then all of you can say what you think of the different ones? That way you can go through them but keep the article stable. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there will still be an unrelated picture on top of the article. Ealdgyth don't like images of cavalry melee. Well, as a military nerd, I find this kind of pictures very attractive, almost sexy, you know ... It's subjective. Anyway the current picture is objectively not related to the subject of the article and should be changed.Moustachioed Womanizer (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

People, can you guys use proper threading with colons, at least? ( :, ::, :::, etc...) Rafiki, Samurai, Moustache, you are all pretty new users, which is great, but can you try to learn about our policies and procedures before arguing about them? Here we have an image dispute. The gallery below is a suitable place to propose new images. End of story, now let's return to the topic at hand. Images. Other topics can be discussed under a different header if needed. Montanabw (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What a rational, logical and sensible idea....so I guess it wont work here as logic, sensibility and rationality has been pushed aside by blind belief in ones own personal infallibility.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, Samurai, personal comments are completely unnecessary. Comment on the content, not the contributors, please. Second, I agree with Ealdgyth - we need something much less cluttered than the image that MW is proposing as a lead image. I'm ambivalent on the current image, but don't like the proposed image. Third, Rafiki, the category I think you're looking for is Commons Cat:Military use of horses. Everyone who wants to change the currently lead image should probably poke around in there; I would suggest bringing any images proposed for the main page here, though, for easier discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No I was meaning to create a new one and only add images people are proposing for here rather than go through the large amount in that category. But yes I agree that cat is one of the best places to try to find the images in.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Commons would take all that kindly to us making a category just for images that are being discussed for the lead image in an en.wiki article. Generally, when discussing replacing an image, what we do is make a separate section with a gallery where everyone can put their own proposed images, and then discuss underneath. If there are lots of people with lots of proposed images, each person can have their own subsections for images and discussion. This tends to work better than upsetting Commons by creating new categories that don't fit within their overall category scheme (they're for classifying images by content, not by what articles the images are used for). Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be an issue with a horses in warfare category the one you pointed to will cover use in warfare as well as cermonial and other usage. There exist subcats for just ww1 and ww2 horse so a general one for horses in warfare in general is not that divergant a theme.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But you said the category would be "only [for] images people are proposing for here" - that means it wouldn't be a general "horses in warfare" category. Also, I think you would have a hard time convincing Commons that "Horses in warfare" is a needed subcat of "Military use of horses", as they are essentially the same thing (ceremonial or not, cavalry is the use of horses in war). The gallery below works, and makes it easy to keep everything on the same page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt have suggested it if i did not think it would have lifespane beyond the first use. It would be useful for anyone seeking images of horses in warfare specificly rather than more varied military uses. RafikiSykes (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, You really think a lot of your self dont you? I can point out how you do not follow policies and procedures and you should certainly know better seeing as you think that you so experienced. Who put you in charge anyway?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can both of you cut it out? I really don't care who started it or why, but this isn't helpful at all. Let's just focus on the picture without bringing other editors into it, thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Second gallery
I dug around and found these images, some of which aren't ideal, but demonstrate a much wider range of historic art and sculpture than might work better than the jousting photo used.

Another image discussion
Above are some alternative images which might contrast with what is shown above. Anybody like one of the these?BusterD (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By looking at the images posted already its obvious that there are many images available for use that portray horses in warfare, there is no reason to use a modern photograph of a re-creation of the use of horses in warfare and there is no reason to use a photograph unless it actually portrays horses being used in warfare. Even an image of someone in military garb just sitting on a horse is not a completely accurate portrail of the articles subject, there should be some evidence of warfare involved. Here are a few that fit the subject.

Possible informal poll
Here's my thought: If we are going to settle this, the more images we add, the less helpful it's getting. So how do we narrow the parameters? Thoughts below. Weigh in. Here's my votes. Per WP guidelines, this isn't a "vote" because WP isn't a democracy, but be good to get a sense of where people are going. Add polling categories if you think they are needed. Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC) - 1. Photos of live horses: Absolutely preferable, merely preferred, or equal to non-photo artwork?
 * Votes
 * Strongly preferred but not absolutely preferred. Will go with broad consensus.  Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

- 2. Group or solo images: No more than one animal, period; one primary focus though multiple animals behind OK if minor; or mass battle scene?
 * Votes


 * Strong primary focus on one animal Either solo or with non-distracting background of others.  No mob scenes with no clear focus.   Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

--- 3.  Statues, sculpture, pottery
 * Votes:


 * No. Plenty of paintings and photos.   Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

--- 4. Right or left-facing. Preference in MOS for images facing into the article (i.e left-facing) --- 5. Favorite three artworks (in no particular order):
 * Votes:
 * Don't care deeply  but if we ever try to go to FA, others will care, so do lean toward something that is left facing.  Montanabw (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Votes:
 * File:Eustachy Erazm Sanguszko.jpg; File:Takemitsu samurai.jpg; File:Wesley Merritt during the Spanish-American War.jpg  Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Takemitsu samurai.jpg; File:Wesley Merritt during the Spanish-American War.jpg File:Detaille - La Charge.jpg, Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

6. Favorite three photos (in no particular order:
 * Votes:
 * Current one, File:Roman Cavalry 1.jpg or File:Caballería legionaria.jpg of what's there so far. Newbies not serious improvement over existing photo.   Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion here
The original topic, the lead image, arose because a user believes that an image of a modern day jouster is not illustrative of horses in warfare, instead proposing a battle scene. Opposition to that image centered on quality and content of the image. Discussion on topic has gotten sidetracked to unrelated issues. Let's bring it back to the topic. My view: this article is about horses first, warfare second. Thus big battle images are not suitable here, the HORSE should be front and center, literally. Second, I share the view that WP prefers single images, clear, easy to read, and for a lead article image, clicking to enlarge is NOT an option on mirror sites, so the image has to be clear as it is. Further, WP prefers photos over paintings when possible. Of the images currently in the gallery, three meet that standard, barely However, all have either quality problems (horse's legs invisible in grass, guy looks about to fall off) or the "not war" issue of the original, which still meets people's perception of the most popular vision of horses in warfare. I'm not opposed to a better image, but I haven't seen it yet. Montanabw (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any of the pictures above will do, except the Coracero (a purely ceremonial unit). But I must say that I find Gericault's Horseman very stunning and fit to be the lead image of this article.Moustachioed Womanizer (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, you said "Further, WP prefers photos over paintings when possible.", but here is what Images actually says  "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement. Some editors maintain that photographs are preferable to paintings and sketches. Notable exceptions exist. Bird identification guides have traditionally used sketches. Other editors dispute giving any preference to photographs." You do like to make thing up dont you? Images also states "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." and "Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. For example Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice"  Just as "Horses in Warfare" should have been represented with an image of "Horses in Warfare"  not an image of jousting.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IF paintings are considered, the File:Takemitsu_samurai.jpg one is actually kind of cool, I'll move it to the "maybe" column in my mind. I'd like others to weigh in on the "is it OK to consider a good painting" issue.    Gericault is not too bad, I wouldn't hold my breath until I turn blue to say "no," but I presume this is some sort of nobleman in a "famous warrior" pose even if the guy never went near a battlefield. Dime a dozen painting, IMHO. I also don't care a lot for the "butt-view-of-a-levade" position, as that half-rear actually exposed a horse's underbelly to weaponry.   I still prefer photos, though.  The ceremonial unit is pretty, though as a partial shot, not as good as what's there already, which I still view as a superior image.  However, we can compare all possibilities.  Samurai, I'm not going to engage with you, just submit your favorite images and we can all consider them.   Montanabw (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of those I think 6 and 8 are good. Gericault prefered as slimmer portrait orientation would look good next to the text and it is just quite a striking image.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to just jump in the fray with more suggestions, but I found these CC-licensed images while doing the rounds on Flickr, , . There are other possibilities in the photostream as well that would satisfy need for live horses in battle action shots. I could upload them if interested (didn't want to clutter up the page). Froggerlaura (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for locating them, though in general, group shots have problems whether photo or painting (the beauty of the existing image is that it is primarily ONE animal, facing the camera). 5771109777 isn't too bad, other than the guy having his back to the camera, it could be cropped to get rid of most of the foot soldiers.  The one of the solehorse has its legs cut off, and the other is just a group scene.  Open question, why oh why are all these guys who do reenactments so overweight and such poor riders?  (rhetorical question, I guess) .  Sigh...  Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Commentary on all of the above

 * Comments, for what they are worth:
 * The current image is risibly inappropriate, showing someone dressed up to play at what was in the past a sport, and quite irrelevant to the use of horses in war, which was dark and serious business. The same consideration applies to File:Roman Cavalry 1.jpg and File:Caballería legionaria.jpg, some blokes in red socks and brothel-creepers playing at being Romans. Let's be quite clear about a couple of things: war is not a game, and reconstruction is not history. There are, btw, two images of "jousting" in the article, as well as one of a policeman in Poland, all way off-topic.
 * Agree that paintings are mostly preferable to sculptures etc., and that photos are better than both. Luckily there are loads of them on commons, many as part of the Bundesarchiv. My personal choice would be for those that show something of what it meant for the horses to be at war, such as these:
 * {| style="float: left; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: .46em 0 0 .2em;"

in snow near Minsk
 * - style="font-size: 86%;"
 * valign="top" |Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B15084, Russland, bei Minsk, Pferdeschlitten im Schnee.jpg
 * }
 * If a painting is to be used, then I believe it should not be simply an equestrian portrait like many of those above including the Géricault (which I love, and yes, OK, there is action in it too), or David's portrait of Napoleon and Marengo. Two that seem to me to show horses at war are:
 * {| style="float: left; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: .46em 0 0 .2em;"

Uccello, The rout of San Romano
 * - style="font-size: 86%;"
 * valign="top" |Paolo Uccello 023.jpg
 * }
 * I note that the Elsholtz Napoleon painting dates from 1845; as such, it is perhaps not a particularly reliable historic document, and may show more the type of horse in use at that time than in Napoleon's time. :Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) JLAN, I strongly encourage you to actually read the underlying article and the entire conversation above before replying to my post. Sorry you got bent out of shape that I stuck your images into galleries (no content was changed, it was a formatting edit, and this is the ONLY time ** I ** have actually deliberately altered anything you put on a talk page, your insulting insinuations notwithstanding), but I suggest you do so because putting in big images on a talk page just bloats the conversation, thumbnails are more efficient.  But that's neither here nor there, bloat the page all you want.  Montanabw (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) But to the point: On one hand, you make a good point that warfare is a bad thing that gets glorified.  I actually agree with you on that point.  However, we could just put a photo of a dead horse as the lead and be done with it if that's the point (there are several on Commons).  I, however, feel that a suitable photo or painting, preferably in color (there are some "live" modern regiments, the US Cavalry keeps one for exhibition purposes that uses authentic equipment) showing a warfare theme is preferable.  Of what you proposed, some may work, though the snow one is already the lead for Horses in World War II, and per the conversation above, the large group images don't look good as a lead, a single or few-horse image is preferable.  See WP:LEAD for guidelines.   Montanabw (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The rest of the photos in the article are intended to illustrate various points made in the text, hence why reading the text is a good thing: The police horse accompanies a section that talks about modern uses of horses derived from their earlier military purposes, such as police work, search and rescue, etc. It's perfectly relevant, though if someone wants to use an image of cops doing riot control or something, that's worth discussing. If someone wants to replace the jousting pair of folks (which was actually the old lead image of this article about 5 years ago) with some other medieval themed image of barded horses and knights in armour, no skin off my nose, but some sort of good medieval image should be in about that spot.  As for the reenactors, you really do have to stick to the point:  sure, a lot of them are overweight, bad riders and maybe wear red socks.  But "brothel-creepers" is over the top --  NOT an AGF statement --  and may be slanderous to the individuals in the images (or not, but we cannot know one way or the other) so best to avoid gratuitous insults.   Montanabw (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Brothel creepers" is the entirely correct term for a style of retro footware also popular with gothic and emo crowds. To say that is slanderous is somewhat hysterical when the user is only pointing out out of era items.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My gods, can we just leave the personal comments somewhere else? That is for everyone here - there is no need to put down pictures people picked out or that someone else likes. Let's just ... pick your favorites and cull down the possiblities to something approaching a smaller number which we can then discuss. I don't find photographs of reconstruction at all out of place here in this article - especially if its reasonably well done, so I did find JLAN's comments a bit over the top. We could have gotten the idea that JLAN would prefer a non-reconstruction photo without the put down on the subjects of the photos. Likewise, we don't need to throw barbs at folks all the time, please. I've not really participated here because quite frankly, the atmosphere is not exactly great (and before anyone starts, I really don't care who/what/why it started, lets rise above it please???). Can we decide on some princples or something? And can folks just joining the conversation realize that those who worked on the text of the article are understandably going to feel they have some input and be a bit put out that folks who didn't do the hard slog of research/writing are criticising their choices of images?? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I TRIED when I set up the poll. AND I tried to set up some principles but it appears that NO ONE IS LISTENING because everyone would just rather attack and be insulting.  So OK, never heard of "brothel creepers" before, I'll strike that bit.  But much as you don't like drama, drama we got, and I am SICK AND TIRED of JLAN, Rafiki, and Samurai stalking me across multiple articles just to make my life miserable!  How about you three actually create some content instead of attacking everyone else's hard work?  Montanabw (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He-he, I am amused to see brothel-creepers described as 'retro' – I am so old that I wore them when they were trendy. I am sorry that I find re-enactment ridiculous, but I do; it is just one facet of the pernicious idea that ersatz culture is an adequate substitute for the real thing, that the fibre-glass replica is a tolerable representation of the original Greek bronze. Of course we are in the middle of it here, with digitised documents on every hand; it's so easy to read an early book online, so easy to forget just how different an experience it is to actually hold a 500-year-old volume in your hand and ease it open... So, people have fun re-enacting and others have fun watching it, that is all good; but it's not history and I believe it is totally out of place here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia guidelines on images> Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, For further information, see: Reliable sources.

"'Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images."

The editor who removed the lead image was completely right in removing the image as it does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, the editor who reverted the edit had no basis to insist on keeping the image in the article even while what image to use is being discussed, the lead image needs be replaced and if some consensus is not reached soon anyone can replace the current lead image with any suitable image as per Wikipedia guidelines and anyone reverting the edit would be directly disregarding and violating Wikipedia policy.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's sure a good way to tame down an edit war. And Samurai, you are actually dead wrong on this, the process is underway to discuss improvement of the article and the "you are all the way wrong and I am all the way right" is not helping.   Montanabw (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, there would not be any edit war if it were not for your inappropriate reverts, you are the first one to pull the old "Wikipedia rules and regulations" line on anyone you feel like bullying but when it comes to you and your edits suddenly its a different story. Anyone can go check the history of the article and see that it was YOU that put the lead image in place and you have some sort of OWNERSHIP problem with this and every other article you happen to work on.  Even now your trying desperately to be in control and manipulate the outcome.  "the process is underway to discuss improvement of the article"....what does that have to do with replacing an inappropriate lead image which never should have been used in the first place?????.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead wood?
So, the Modern Use section appears to have a good deal of material in it that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of Horses in warfare. I would tentatively suggest ending it at "... the Indian Army's 61st Cavalry" and then: I believe that pruning out this dead wood would allow the article to focus on its main topic. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * move the material on 'Law enforcement and public safety' to Mounted police and Mounted search and rescue, or discard it, as appropriate, as it has nothing to do with warfare
 * move the material on 'Ceremonial and educational uses' to Cavalry, or discard it, as appropriate, as it has nothing to do with warfare; but possibly retain the bit about the Nepali cavalry, which has a residual connection?
 * move the material on 'Equestrian sport' to Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, Dressage, Show jumping, Eventing, Mounted shooting and Tent pegging, or discard it, as appropriate, as it has nothing to do with warfare


 * The article is a broad overview, and already has at least four spinoffs (WWI, WWII, East Asia, Napoleonic Wars) And the point here was that military uses evolved away from horses into use of tanks and helicopters, but that horses themselves are still useful in ways that stem in a diret line from their military purposes. The point was to show evolution to the present (not just a few Taliban or something)  The military itself in various nations keeps horse-mounted units (including the USA). and so it isn't really dead wood in the least, IMHO.  Frankly, all the eventing stuff has clear military antecedents and, furthermore, the Olympics didn't even allow civilians to compete in equestrian until the 50s.  And don't tell the riot police that it ain't urban warfare, eh?  And thanks for calling it all "dead wood."  :-P   Montanabw (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A bold terminology, I'll concede. Perhaps a bit unkind. I would think dead wood is the opposite of what this section represents. It's important for Wikipedians to help the reader understand an overview of the subject matter: beginning, middle, end. Could be improved and tightened (perhaps even expanded); I think the section title misleads slightly. It's not zooming to me, but I envision something like: "Modern evolution" (too charged a word), "Cavalry today" (sounds like a daily), "Modern cavalry", "Modern horsed units". What about "Legacy" which is a common historical page header? The section's intention is to demonstrate the impact of long-used military human/horse partnership on the modern human culture. (Where did all the horses go?) BusterD (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But, with respect, this is not the cavalry article, where some of those suggestions might have a place. It is an article about Horses in warfare. To my mind, that means that the content should have something to do with that topic. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what a WP:overview is supposed to be. It is entirely appropriate that there should be a resumé of the subtopics of the article (WWI etc.). It is entirely inappropriate to have extended discussion of vaguely related matters which should be in their own articles elsewhere (I have made some suggestions above as to where the stuff should go). "Overview" should not be an excuse for extended discussion of "other things that horses sometimes do now that they are not used in warfare", any more than it is an excuse for extended discussion of "what cavalry units do now that they don't use horses any more", which blissfully is still absent from the article. "Legacy" seems to be a good heading for a brief section with the few sentences from "Modern uses" that are truly germane, as long as it doesn't then become an excuse for a laundry list of every cultural reference to horses in war. I am surprised that there is no section on "Literature", just the one brief mention of Xenophon. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * May I then suggest that perhaps you might post what you'd like to see in your proposed sections and we can work on it? This is an A class MilHist article, and presumably the folks who reviewed the article didn't have an issue with this information being in the article, so it's not just the editors commenting here that agreed the information fit with the article - it also was the A-class reviewers. Make a suggestion, let's see what happens, and lets spend less time worrying about whether or not the other editors have the same understanding of various wikipedia policies - they do allow room for different interpetations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was and is 'suggest ending it at "... the Indian Army's 61st Cavalry" '. I believe that a 'Literature' section, were anyone to have the skills needed to write one (which I for one most definitely do not), would be a relevant addition to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles A reminder on Wiki policy about ownership issues.
All Wikipedia content[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

Examples of ownership behavior [edit]Actions An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine correction of egregious formatting errors.)

Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (see Nos. 1 and 2 just below).

"Are you qualified to edit this article?"

"You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."

"I/he/she/we created this article" (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).

"Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"

"Hello, and welcome! I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help, however I am a expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will immediately proceed to ignore it." [edit]On revert

"Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."

"I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!" Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And this helps the discussion how? Actually, all the edits today help the discussion how? Can we limit the discussion to the image itself and not the other editors ... even obliquely? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth...do you have a solution here???, I am pointing out that the original creator of this article (Montanabw) may have a problem with "ownership", Montanabw's blatant and obvious attempts to control this article is getting in the way of this problem being settled, the contempt of editors who in Montanabw's opinion are not experienced enough to edit "HIS" article is clearly apparent. If Montanabw can not be objective in this matter then Montanabw should not participate in this discussion and let editors who do not have ownership issues solve this problem instead of letting it drag on.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest a solution? We discuss user behaviors on user talk pages, and page content on page talk areas like this, OK? User:Ealdgyth has offered the perfect solution (I'll paraphrase): Let's discuss page content. Period. No snarking, no sarcasm or irony. This is a serious business we're discussing in a light-hearted and personal way. User:Samuraiantiqueworld, if you wanted to make a case of poor user behavior against an editor, you can make that case in any number of forums in Wikipedia space or in the user's personal talk. Belaboring previous behavior here is entirely off point. I encourage you to consider moving or copying the above statement to your chosen forum. At some point, an editor will box this discussion as off-topic and we can move on to improving this mature page of an complex subject matter. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree. This is the page for discussion of improvements to the article. If, as has been suggested, there is an ownership problem here, then dealing with it is an immediate priority in the improvement of the article, and that makes this exactly the right place to discuss it. It doesn't make this the right place for personal remarks of any kind, and I would like to invite those editors who have made them above to strike them through in recognition of their inappropriateness to this page. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that there is at least one editor here who would do well to read through the ownership guidelines with some care. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the original creator, I moved it to its present title, though.  As for the rest, I will discuss these personal attacks on the talk pages of the people who made them.   I also must note that I have merely requested basic respect, and went to notable lengths HERE to create a poll for suggested images, we collecting images and votes (and one of Samurai's suggested images is leading the poll, in case anyone has bothered to step away from the drama and notice), and attempting to discuss criteria for a better image.  At this point, I think that Samurai and I need to go elsewhere to resolve these purely personal ad hominem attacks that wasting page space here.  As for JLAN, he is just being JLAN the way he's been JLAN all across WPEQ, and I'm not going to engage him further as it appears to merely be feeding trolls.  Montanabw (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussing lede and other images for inclusion or use in the pagespace
I'm taking the liberty of opening a new discussion and this time I'll stick around to help moderate the discussion as best I can. Some editors have found reason to discuss other editors in earlier threads, but we'll talk about the images here. As a primary contributor, User:Montanabw has an important interest in contributing to the correct choice, if any new choice is to be made. That editor, User:Ealdgyth, and others have gotten the page to this point. They will be around maintaining it from mucking and vandalism after promotion. I invite a freer discussion here with Montanabw's valid concerns in mind. Who'd like to start off? I'll comment about the discussion first. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. For my part I've been learning a lot about the experience of seasoned editors about what works in article promotion. This is an A-class article as passed by WP:MILHIST review, so that's a pretty tough board to get by. The next phase is the smoothing of a really fine content article into its most artful and readable self, yet staying within the strictures laid out by FA criteria. A poor lede image choice can be one factor preventing this space from promotion. It's only with this in mind that the fairly narrow straw poll created above makes sense. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another. User:Justlettersandnumbers makes an excellent point above that warfare is neither glorious or attractive in its harsh realities, especially those realities imposed as modern warfare and total war on livestock of all kinds. By that view, the jousting lede pic looks pretty cavalier (no double pun intended). The article has a fair number of images, maybe too many. What proportion of images should be pictures of actual horses, artworks, historical representations? BusterD (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BusterD, you state that "As a primary contributor, User:Montanabw has an important interest in contributing to the correct choice, if any new choice is to be made". This goes directly against Wikipedia ownership policy Ownership of articles, which states that "All Wikipedia content[1] is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article", I know that you are trying to be diplomatic here but being a "primary editor" does not give any editor any more rights or "weight" on article edits.
 * The original problem here was that editor User:Moustachioed Womanizer identified the lead image [] as not representing the subject of the article, here is the comment left on the edit "replaced unrelated picture by a high def picture" The lead image has been in place since 2006 and it was put there with this comment "Adding a purty picture" [] The image has nothing to do with the subject of the article as it shows a modern representation of Jousting, in fact this very image is currently used in the jousting article (Jousting) with the caption "Renaissance Fair jousting in Livermore, California, 2006".The only thing that should be discussed here is what image will replace the lead image. Since the title of the article is "Horses in warfare" that should be the subject of the lead image. Now what method gets used to pick a new lead image?
 * User:Samuraiantiqueworld, you misunderstood my point. As someone who has been here through dramatic growth and improvement, defending and improving through various promotion procedures, that editor and others involved would have a good understanding of what has been reviewed and questioned so far, with an interest toward what future promotion might occur. Stewardship is not ownership, and while I have myself questioned a user's actions regarding this subject, I'm willing to put all that behind me to focus on pagespace. I have similar concerns to yours as it regards the lede image, but we're here discussing it, so that's better than the insertion and reversion we were seeing before my first appeal to talk. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with changing the picture, I've suggested some choices - and my personal opinion is that a photo is more attention getting than a painting. I'd prefer to see a color photograph, even if of a re-enactment, than a non-attention grabbing painting in the lead. I'd rather not see File:GericaultHorseman.jpg because it's overused, in my opinion. File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - 'cavalry charge'.jpg - although a group shot and a reenactment, does capture the attention nicely.  File:Grande Armée - 10th Regiment of Cuirassiers - Colonel.jpg the problem with this image is that it is facing out of the page, which is a problem with the MOS.  File:Württ. Ulanen Nr. 20 1870.jpg would work also. If, however, this discussion can't get on track, I'm going to go back to other things. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another choice would be File:Elginmarblesalpha.jpg, which I will admit is a photograph by me, but its one of the better Elgin Marbles shots available. I could also crop File:Britishmuseumassyrianlionhuntreliefgrooms.jpg down a bit if we wanted to go more ancient. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked the cavalry charge too, but was afraid it would be a bit confusing at first glance. That image has an advantage of not being used elsewhere, so exclusivity has pluses. I also disagree with User:Samuraiantiqueworld that we're merely discussing the lede image. We couldn't utilize an image already in use on the page, for example. It has been pointed out above that some images we like are already in use as lede images on other related articles, so that's another issue. Ideally, the lede image should complement all the other images on the page. Since at some point the page will be up for FA review, and since we're discussing images, I see no reason to limit the discussion to merely the first image on the page. It would be a good idea for us to find together a lede image which would pass FA review (User:Montanabw's primary concern). It would also be a good time to do an image review with the FA in mind. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my opinion about a broader discussion is out of place, in the present context. I neglected to say I like both the ancient images (coincidentally photographed by someone with this sort of page interest), and I was wondering whether an image which reflects the antiquity of the man/horse partnership might be most appropriate. A Featured Picture never hurts. I would prefer a true, recognizable masterpiece occupy the lede spot (like something classical or a Remington), but I'm not seeing the ideal image right now for many of the reasons Ealdgyth and Montanabw have been explaining. I've never chaperoned an article all the way to Featured class myself, so I tend to listen to the experience of folks who have. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from an anatomical cutaway, the only featured image I see is the magnificent Qianlong Emperor, but it faces off page and is less like warfare than the jousting image. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Plunking a few images into the pagespace to view I really like File:Napoleon i Poniatowski Lipsk.jpg on the page, though it faces incorrectly. The Schreyer also looks super, but has the same flaw. The Thulstrup of W. T. Sherman meets every concern I've read above, but nobody's mentioned it once. The Eugène Delacroix chevaliers look fabulous. I also like the Ucello. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not use a "impressionistic" image - My personal preferences would be ordered in the following order: color photograph, black and white photograph, detailed realistic painting, sculpture that's easily recognizable, impressionistic pictures, abstract/modernistic art. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) As an addition - the Ucello's color is off... the actual painting isn't quite so ... washed out. While I find Ucello to be one of my favorite painters of all time, I am less impressed with using him as a lead image, as i'd classify him as more "impressionistic" than "realistic" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth..... "File:Grande Armée - 10th Regiment of Cuirassiers - Colonel.jpg the problem with this image is that it is facing out of the page, which is a problem with the MOS"..... Just so we are all on the same page can you show me the section of the MOS that specifically referrers to images "facing out of the page" as being a problem? I am not familiar with that section, Thanks    Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:IMAGES - sixth bullet point "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text...." Although there can be exceptions, in this case, with the number of possible excellent images, there isn't really a compelling need to ignore this part of the MOS. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an very clear detailed period image which has all the proper qualifications....A single warrior wearing armor on horseback, in the act of defending himself, his sword raised in attack and actually cutting an arrow in half, arrows flying all around him, his horse rearing up...and "facing the right way?"..what more can you ask for...Kikuchi Takemitsu at the battle of Chikugo River....Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a fine image, but it is not properly credited to the artist, which is Ebine Shundo definitely not Victor Blarson. I don't know when the image was created and it probably should not be at Commons. Froggerlaura (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." Correct me if I am wrong but we are not using any "images of faces", I think this is being mis-applied, and "often preferable"..very vague and not an absolute at all. We are discussing images of people and horses, not entire faces....I can see no valid reason why such an image can not be facing either direction.....if all MOS were to be strictly followed in every instance Wikipedia articles would look very much different....they would all have appropriate valid references for one thing....Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Most Wikipedia pages don't follow MOS in every respect. Only 1 in 1000 pages makes it to Featured Article status, and the ones that do largely exemplify the manuals of style, with some IAR included. This page is on the path to such a review, so attention to procedure which has worked before seems one pragmatic approach. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's actually a reason for this "rule"... images where the face or the action are facing "out" from the page, tend to distract the reader away from the content. It's basic newspaper/magazine/book layout 101 to face any image INTO the content to help keep the reader's attention on the content. So while the MOS says "faces" it's generally a good idea to follow the intent of this rule. So an image where all the action is headed "offscreen" will tend to lose readers... that's the point. Its not like there aren't plenty of good images to choose from, so there is no reason to risk the loss of reader attention. And I'd like to point out that this article is being aimed at FAC ... where this sort of minutiae IS important, so we might as well keep that in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Images can easily be edited to point in the other direction if thats a major concern.


 * No, they shouldn't be "flipped" as that's not presenting the image as it is. Read further on the MOS:Images link above, it specifically states that's not a good idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions"..."common sense" and "Occasional exceptions"...No one ever died from an image that was edited.....Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The aim of the article is to go to FAC, which means that the article must conform to the MOS. While, yes, exceptions happen, they need to have a very good reason. There are plenty of images to choose from that DO conform to the MOS, so there is no compelling reason to not consider the MOS. But.. that's neither here nor there... You've pointed out an image, but besides the issues with the MOS, it has licensing issues that were pointed out above, so it's disqualified for that also. Can we consider OTHER images perhaps? It's not like there aren't plenty above, and I pointed out several that I liked above also, so lets discuss those images, or you can suggest other images you like that fit the bill... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, I already changed the author of the image and it should probably have never been approved in the first place. Why not pick the one image you think is best suited for the lead and see what comes of that, my only feelings on the subject is that any image used should clearly represent the subject of the article, not just a military horse but a horse being used in the act of warfare, thats what the article is about, humans using horses as a tool of war. I really do not care what era or culture is represented.  Montanabw said this about you>>>"Ealdgyth, who is one of wikipedias's top 500 or so most prolific editors with dozens of GA and FA's to her name" so you should be able to come up with an image what properly portrays the articles subject I would think. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I happen to favor a quality lead image as well. At the time the jouster was added as lead, there were far fewer images to choose from and it was among the best there were at the time. Here, I am not wedded to keeping that image for itself so much as that the image swap that started this was not suitable for all the reasons discussed ad nauseum above.  I happen to trust Ealdgyth's views most often as well, and Buster is to be commended for keeping a civil discussion going.  So if there is a truly improved image we can use, and it passes muster with Ealdgyth, I'm for it.  I've stated my views here, and see no need to restate them. All I will say for present is that if we merely want to get rid of the jousting image for its own sake, I'd prefer we stop, think, and leave the status quo until a truly superior image can be provided.   Montanabw (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Other photos in article
Given that this article will soon be at FA, I checked the licensing of the images currently displayed on the page. There are a few images that have problematic licensing. I'm not sure how picky FA will be, but here is what I found. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File:HaniwaHorse.JPG was photographed from the Tokyo Museum’s collection in 2004, but the museum does not allow images/films to be used commercially (probably shouldn’t be at Commons)
 * For the other museum pieces, I could not find any specific prohibition on the use of images.
 * File:NasunoYoichi.jpg does not list any creator or date information. It was scanned from a copyrighted book but does not list the original artist or estimated date of scroll. The image could be from a private collection that retains copyright.
 * File:Mooko-HakataWall.jpg does not list where photograph of the scroll was obtained though it gives other specifics.


 * The drama such as that above has already derailed this article from FA on at least one prior occasion, though it is always a good idea to fix bad copyrights on images as we find them. I may defer to Ealdgyth on fixing these, I am more interested (believe it or not) in the content of the body text.   Montanabw (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the Indian regiment used for?
I cannot find any information what it is used for, but the article claims it would be operational. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the footnote to the info, I think that's all we have.  Montanabw (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is the onliest statement (and btw. it is actually not a good source): “As a result, 61 Cavalry today has the unique distinction of being the only unmechanised mounted cavalry regiment in the world.” But there are other regiments, like the British one for representative purposes. Or is that not a “regiment”? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This issue came up on the Cavalry article about two years ago when the Indian polo magazine was cited as a source for the claim that this regiment was the only operational horse cavalry unit left in the world - as opposed to the various mounted detachments maintained for parade purposes by a number of armies. The claim was an interesting but debatable one - the Chinese army is reported to have two regular horse mounted units of battalion size and frontier guards in various countries still make use of mounted patrols for border work. The 61st Cavalry did undertake this type of duty during the 1971 war with Pakistan but public appearances in recent years have been ceremonial.Buistr (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thus the statement should be removed? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As an update to the above, Chinese media reporting ("Global Times" of 20 November 2009; and an article published by the Xinhua News Agency of 22 August 2011) confirm that the CPA still maintains operational horse cavalry in the Mongolia Autonomous Region. These have however been reduced to squadron size from the former mounted battalions. Henry Dallal's "Horse Warriors - India's 61st Cavalry" (ISBN 10 0954408314) states that "the Indian Army's only mounted regiment" is mainly intended for ceremonial purposes but can be deployed for police or internal security purposes if required.(Buistr (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC))


 * While this is somewhat of a side issue to the ongoing discussion concerning a suitable illustration for the introductory paragraph, it is one that can be readily resolved. Would there be any objection to a brief statement (with sources cited) being added to the effect that as of 2011 both the Indian and Chinese armies still maintain operational horse cavalry - the former for ceremonial and internal security/police purposes; the latter for frontier duties? Buistr (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is a little in here already, in the section on modern uses. Look at it and if you can see room for some expansion with good sources that meet the GA standard and don't go on too long, I'd guess you can run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.  You may also want to look at adding some to the History of the horse in South Asia article also.  Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather a belated response (but then what's 2.5 years in Wikitime). The sourced material relating to the two Chinese and Indian cavalry units that reportedly still have operational roles, was incorporated in the more narrowly focussed Cavalry article. Buistr (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Choices for lead image
Since no one has suggested a good replacement image with all the suggested elements (a horse actually being used in warfare facing the right way etc), I have place my nomination here, lets see any others.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The Kozaemon image is spectacular. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The direction the lead image is facing was used against several proposed images by several editors, proposing yet another "wrong facing image" will not help solve this. The discussion is archived here. [Discussing lede and other images for inclusion or use in the pagespace]
 * I actually agree that the discussion is sort of dead and no sense getting into it again now. This gallery probably should have archived with the discussion.   Montanabw (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead image nominations, one per editor, showing a horse being used in warfare,
 File:Kozaemon Hisamitsu mounted and armored, but bareheaded, on his galloping steed.jpg|An Edo period wood block print of a samurai wearing armour, mounted and in battle. File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - 'cavalry charge'.jpg | My personal choice, arresting and realistic treatment of the horses as it's a photograph (Eald) File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B15084, Russland, bei Minsk, Pferdeschlitten im Schnee.jpg | Real war, real photo, portrays suffering of the animal, b&w gives historic distance. JLAN File:Detaille 4th French hussar at Friedland.jpg | Proper facing, vivid colors, high resolution, strong central figure (BusterD) File:SaberCharge.jpg|Per Ealdgth's reasoning, on hers but fewer animals and clearer on a small screen. FYI, there are other photos of this unit at Commons, and this particular unit is entirely made up of active duty US Army personnel and prides itself on preserving the traditional skills. Not quite a right-facing orientation, but almost head-on, so close enough, I think (Montanabw) File:QF13pounderBouncingNYTribune20October1918.jpg| Six-horse Royal Horse Artillery team with 13-pounder cannon at speed, World War I. Not really right-facing, but full of action and a photograph (Pesky) 