Talk:Icelandic horse

Numbers
why are there so many horses in Iceland? That works out to more than 1 horse per 3 people. How do they manage them in the nuclear winter and for feed?
 * You should sign your posts. To answer your question: Icelanders eat horses, hence the great number of them. BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Genitalia
The post in this blog (http://www.spoiltvictorianchild.co.uk/2004/07/mms-gone-to-iceland.html) claims that Icelandic horses have "proportionally the largest genitalia of any horse in the world". Is there anyone that can confirm/deny? I think this is worthy of including in the article if it's true. -Njk 12:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's silly. They are similar in proportions to any other breed.  citydog 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Owners
Tim O'reilly, of computer book publishing fame, has some horses in his personal bio. Are there any other prominent owners?
 * The late Liz Claiborne. Montanabw (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear that most people actually don't eat horse meat any more...this should probably be changed because it represents an outdated cultural stereotype. Discussion?

Icelanders don't eat horse meat regularly. It was banned when Icelanders became christian, in 1000! It is rare that horse meat is for sale in supermarkets, but it is every once in a while. But you couldn't say that Icelanders are a predator threat to the horse.

"Pony"?
The Icelanders I met were quite adamant about calling them horses rather than ponies. Can the "pony" thing in the first sentence be cited, or should it be removed alltogether? The rest of the article never once refers to it as a "pony"; it even compares it to "other breeds of horse" so the article seems to contradict itself. Esn 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it was in this edit where it was changed from "horse" to "pony". I've changed it back, and added a small bit of info about the name.  Esn 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the Icelanders *want* to call them, they are ponies. Their ancesters are ponies http://icehorses.net/ancestors.html They have pony characteristics http://icehorses.net/pony.html  Therefore, I would change the part that says "Because they can be pony-sized..." to something like "Because they ARE pony-sized..."

___________________________________________

Montanabw said: "Maybe pony DNA, but I've had breeders bite my head off when calling them ponies! Going with what the breeders and registries call them."

Information on Wikipedia should be true, shouldn't it? Not just what people want to hear? We shouldn't go by marketing myths.

Check the European sites which accurately call them ponies.

http://www.island-pony.com/

http://www.amazon.de/Keine-Angst-Islandpony-Krista-Ruepp/dp/3314014023

http://www.research-projects.unizh.ch/p3439.htm

http://www.norway.com/directories/d_company.asp?id=6075

http://www.pferdeecke.de/wissen/rassen/island-pony.html

http://www.kindernetz.de/oli/tierlexikon/pics/druckversion.php?tid=38&reiter=steckbrief

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isl%C3%A4nder_(Pferd)

http://www.pferde.de/index.php?id=646

http://www.tiere-rassen.de/pferde/pony/island-pony/

http://www.pferde-wissen.net/island-pony.html

http://www.islandpony.ch/

http://www.world-of-animals.de/tierlexikon/tierart_Islandpony.html

http://www.reitenonline.de/pferdewebverzeichnis/reitsportwebverzeichnis_registrieren.php

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Journals/Journal/450483 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceryder (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
"There are roughly 80,000 Icelandic horses in Iceland[citation needed], and relatively few abroad, owing in large part to centuries-old Icelandic legislation that prevents any Icelandic horse from returning to the island once it has been taken to another land."

This statement is completely false, as there are now more horses located outside of Iceland than within the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.222.12 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 May 2007
 * Are there any sources for this that we can cite? Esn 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gait Animations link
The link for animations of the different Icelandic horse gates now leads to a 404 error. I don't know if it points to what is now the wrong page, or if it doesn't exist any longer, but if someone doesn't mind navagating around a page in Icelandic to find out, it might be worthwhile to do so and update the link appropriately.

http://eidfaxi.is/fraedsla/eindex.php?fraedsla=gangtegundir71.37.138.49 07:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaits image concern
I noticed that the horse pictured in the gaits section is very dirty (looks like manure because of the location of the stains) and thought that this might be a turn off to other people. I have uploaded another photo that can serve as a cleaner replacement. Mrs. Clean 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personaly owning and training icelandic horses I would use a better picture for showing the gate, and I would also have a picture og a horse in pace. It is not difficult to find much better quality competition pictures than that. Unregistered user 12:44, 24 July 2007

Well, since noone has responded with their own "competition" photo of the different gaits, I will post this one of an Icelandic tolting on a trail ride. Most of the owners I know do more trail riding than showing since there aren't that many shows to go to in the US. Mrs. Clean 04:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Iceryder
First off, I think there is some confusion between Iceryder.com, which is a poor quality commercial site with little educational material specific to the Icelandic horse and has been tossed off of here a couple of times, and Iceryder.net, which is a better quality site with some educational materials. To the extent that I got on autopilot and tossed one site, thinking it the other, not realizing that there were two, I apologize. That said, the first screen of Iceryder.net looks almost as POV and commercial as Iceryder.com until you scroll down a bit. That is weak web design, but not fatal.

In general, internal pages from commercial sites with educational information that is accurate and of high quality work particularly well as SPECIFIC FOOTNOTES to verify the factual information in the article, and this one desperately needs footnotes. See WP:Cite for how to do this. Toss in a few other people's materials and cite to book sources too, though. But please also read WP:NPOV and WP:No original research. If you read the wikipedia guidelines found at the "help" link to the left, you will see that I am not being mean, I am merely trying to improve this article, which is, frankly, a ways from the good articles standard.

Thus, Iceryder.com is pretty much completely unacceptable, whereas internal pages at iceryder.net such as http://iceryder.net/info/index.html and even more so, those like http://iceryder.net/saddle.html can be quite helpful. (I will put ONE link from .net back to the ref list, it seems quite relevant) On the other hand, an article mirroring another site, like this:  http://iceryder.net/backstudy.html should NOT be linked, but if the info was used in the article, the citation should go to the original publication, and so should any URL unless the original publication only exists in hardcopy.

A link the the iceryder.net site map would also not be acceptable under the wikipedia "no link farm" policy. (Thousands of articles, indeed! And wikipedia wants you do to the work of sorting through them for the reader!)  Likewise, articles, for example, on Parelli training methods are POV for this article, though perhaps they could be used to improve the Parelli Natural Horsemanship article (which, by the way, desperately needs improvement!). In your case, red flags went up when "Iceryder" linked to Iceryder.net or Iceryder.com. To link to the home page of your own web site smacks of commercial self-promotion, whether you were doing so or not, which may be sad, but true.

The difference is basically between sites promoting a breed in general, with an emphasis on education, versus sites promoting an individual farm. Sites containing commercial advertising from multiple advertisers are not ideal, but when they contain reputable educational materials, especially when there isn't much else out there, the less obnoxious forms are acceptable. For example, the Google ads down the side of iceryder.com are not what disqualified it, it was the content of the site itself. To take another example, a forum buried within a breed registry site (there are member forums and marketplace pages in most registry sites) does not disqualify the whole site, but a link directly to the chat forum is not acceptable, nor would a link to a chat forum web site that was mostly ads, bulletin boards, chat rooms and a reprint of a wikipedia article for "educational materials" be acceptable.

Breed registries, even with some advertising (the best do not have advertising links on their home pages, though, looks tacky) are often the most knowledgable sources (though admittedly POV) on many of the rarer and more obscure breeds. Or at least, they are supposed to be (yes, I know, there are always horse politics;...sigh)

Basically, I tossed about a gazillion commercial farm sites off this page a while back, kept the ones that were legitimate breed organizations or seemed to go primarily to educational materials. I reviewed them all again, tossed one dead link. Basically, all the breed registries are legitimate registries as far as I can tell, there may be others. By and large, their commercial links are not on the home page, it's a separate link. Eidfaxi appears to be a major professional publication about Icelandic horses, there may be others, but it looks similar to other breed magazines, with some ads on the home page, which is annoying, but typical, and they do not promote a single vendor.

The link "some Icelandic horse articles" is the most marginal and most commercial, but it goes to an internal page that has primarily a short list of educational articles specific to the unique aspects of the Icelandic breed, and the sales stuff is off a different link placed at the bottom of the page. If the articles are inaccurate or of poor quality, there would be an argument to tossing the link, but this is an example of how a commercial site can be used.

As for the horse/pony question, your own site calls them "horses," acknowledging that "Horse" is an accepted term of art within the English language. I do not dispute that Icelandics have some "pony" characteristics. I also do not dispute the northern European DNA origins. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that English speakers and all the recognized breed registries of English-speaking nations that have been provided to date seem united in calling them "horses," as, apparently, do the official international organizations such as http://feif.org/ who, I presume, are the experts. The Norwegians and the German-speakers seem to want to call them ponies, (though one wiki citing another doesn't "count" as they have the same standards we do here) but in the case of the Germans, they apparently just raised the height of the German riding pony to about 15 hh! I am not going to quibble over cultural differences of opinion and especially usage in other languages.

Also keep in mind that horses and ponies are all Equus caballus and, according to researchers such as Deb Bennett,  the Forest Horse wild prototype appears to be a common ancestor of both modern horse and pony breeds in northern Europe, according to the Four foundations theory. Frankly, IMHO, the 14.2 hand "horse/pony" cutoff dichotomy is a rather false one, given that I have, for example, personally seen 13.2 Arabian "horses" and 15.3 Fjord "ponies." Chincoteague "ponies" are unquestionably horse in phenotype, and grow horse-sized under domestication, yet one could make an argument that the triangular head and heavy forelock of the old "Justin Morgan" style Morgan horse is pony-like. It's a silly argument all around.

Thus, in the English-speaking world, your view of the terminology appears to be a minority position, and while there could be a decent subsection in the article titled something like "Horses or Ponies?" that outlines the controversy, it appears that the weight of the evidence is in favor of the designation "horse." And a discussion of the DNA stuff is better placed under the "history" subheading anyway. The guidelines, particularly WP:WWIN are quite clear that we are not to be doing original research studies or promoting a biased viewpoint. So, if the most apparently reputable sources say it's a "horse," well, they are the experts, and even if I thought I was an expert too, I couldn't publish my own stuff here anyway.

So, my suggestion is that you take what appears to be a lot of extensive research and start footnoting the article. Take a look at the criteria for Good articles (GA) status and see what you can do. I'd be glad to help. For an example of a horse breed article that obtained GA, see Arabian horse. If you want to see articles that may not have 95 footnotes but are still pretty decent, see Appaloosa or American Quarter Horse. Montanabw (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

________________________

Montanabw said: "To link to the home page of your own web site smacks of commercial self-promotion". Just to be clear, in regard to the Icelandic Horse Connection website http://iceryder.net we do not selling anything (no horses, no saddles, no supplements, no charge for reading articles, no fees to join anything, etc). There is an Icelandics For Sale page, as a community benefit (no charge), for anyone to add their personal horse for sale.

We have an educational Icelandic Horse email discussion list with over 1200 members, with 2000 posts per month. We have the IceHorse Rescue, working with and trying to place rescue or rehab Icelandics. We have the Icelandic Horse Pajama Project (for children of poverty), as well as other community projects. We try to put a stop to the abusive practices in Icelandic shows. The email discussion list is the hub of the Icelandic Horse Community in North America.

"As for the horse/pony question...in the English-speaking world, your view of the terminology appears to be a minority position..." It doesn't seem to be a minority on the email discussion list of 1200 members (doubly more than the number of members of the registry), who easily refer to their Icelandic equines as ponies.

The "Horse" in Icelandic Horse or Fjord Horse is just a title. Prior to 1960 marketing, the Icelandics were referred to as Icelandic Ponies. http://iceryder.net/oldicelandic.html

"...the 14.2 hand "horse/pony" cutoff dichotomy is a rather false one, given that I have, for example, personally seen 13.2 Arabian "horses" and 15.3 Fjord "ponies." Absolutely; agree.  My 14.3h Icelandic's height does not transform him into a horse; and my 14h Tennessee Walker will never exhibit pony characteristics.  Height is not the determining factor.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas and the discussion!

Iceryder (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)IceRyder

Title photo
Are you really sure that you want an image of size 300 × 269 pixels with really bad color profile as title image. Well, I just gave up an edit war on German WikiPedia and I see clearly the critics on my image even if it was regarded as featured image - but something else than the current image should be found definitely. Andreas Tille (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Small pixel size of a good quality horse in a classic frame (and it shows the color of the horse just fine) beats a technically perfect image of an ungroomed horse taken at a bad angle which distorted the image and made it look like it had no neck. So yes.  An artsy featured image may not illustrate the characteristics of a breed nor portray an ideal individual. Sorry to disappoint, but if that was your own photo, you need to just take a deep breath and let it go.  It's a great example of a horse with a heavy winter coat.  But the photo is not a good example of the breed characteristics of an Icelandic horse. (Even if the animal, shed off, groomed and properly set up happens to be a good example in real life). This is an ongoing problem in wikipedia, not enough properly composed horse images for a lot of articles, a lot of decently composed images that are of poor technical quality. Sigh...  Montanabw (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour section
I've removed the odd sentence "This sort of behavior is simply not tolerated.". I mention this because it makes me suspicious of the whole of this edit:. Someone should look into it.

Btw, I think that the section's name should be spelled with a U, since that spelling is most often used in Iceland. Bob A (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Spelling most used in Iceland? In Iceland, we speak Icelandic, not English.  Wikipedia spelling conventions should apply. -- Palthrow (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They speak both. Bob A (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No* English is NOT one of Iceland's official languages, never has been. Many Icelanders, of course, speak English, just as many Germans speak English and many Swedes speak English.  Some Icelanders speak British English, others American English, depending on their education.  There is no standard "Icelandic English" to use as reference, and thus your point makes no sense. -- Palthrow (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have to say this, but I never said that English is an official language of Iceland. Bob A (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per wikipedia conventions, whether UK or US English is used, generally the policy is that whichever form the article was started, that is the form that is kept unless there is a very strong consensus to change it. (Or some extremely logical reason, say an article is about England and thus should be in UK English!)  And then, you have to change EVERYTHING, not just a few words in a few places, but consistently throughout.  Here, the article was begun in US English and has been edited for years in US English.  I personally do not care deeply about the issue, but if anyone wants to change it, they need to go through the whole article with a fine-toothed comb, and please only do so AFTER consensus is reached.  And here, there is not a consensus to change it.  My vote is to stay with US English.   Montanabw (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I only meant that as an aside. Bob A (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of gaits
So does it have five or six gaits? I believe that in many languages/cultures there is no distinction made between canter and gallop, which would give ordinary horses three gaits and the Icelandic five – presumably this is where the lower numbers come from: essentially a translation error. However, in English-speaking cultures the distinction is normally made between the three-beat and four-beat gaits, and on WP we have articles or sections for both. I think we do really need to be consistent with the rest of the English WP – and if Icelandic pony horse breeders say five, that's a reason to explain their alternative way of counting, rather than to copy it and be inconsistent with other articles. All this assumes that Icelandics can gallop as well as amble and pace... Richard New Forest (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did some tweaking and added some more information (and references) in the gaits section. Better to explain things in the body rather than the lead. Basically, the breed registries seem to consider the canter and gallop as one gait, something which should now be better explained at the beginning of the gaits section.
 * I have some more sources for the naming thing, will probably work on that later today or tomorrow, as well as taking care of the comments from the peer review. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Improvements work for me, too. Good sourcing.  As for canter/gallop, I doubt it will be fully resolved. They are both "leaping gaits" but they do have a slight difference in footfall, so good arguments both ways.  (The difference between two Saddlebred ambling gaits, the singlefoot and the stepping pace, is even less, I think it's the difference between a metronomic 1-2-3-4 rhythm and a broken 1-2, 3-4 rhythm) There was a big-enough-to-be-annoying edit discussion about the question of canter and gallop being one gait or two because of the extra beat.  I think I lost the battle to merge gallop into canter, yet we have the article leaping gait, lead (leg) and lead change.  You will note you-know-who was behind all that.  I don't even want to remember that little nightmare... (sigh)  Montanabw (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting comments

 * The lead says that "most registries for the Icelandic refer to it as a horse", but the Breed characteristics section says that "breeders and breed registries always refer to Icelandics as a horse".


 * I think the original weasel was from me. When I first started editing breed articles, there appeared to be the remains of a big "what's a horse and what's a pony" edit dispute across several articles, including this one.  (It's long over and was mostly wound down at the time)  That and some clubs for Icelandics in Europe which used the term "pony," though in their own language, not the English word.  I cannot find the original links now, but basically I think we need a minor CYA.    Montanabw (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "They are popular outside of Iceland ..." implies that they may be popular only outside of Iceland.
 * Tweaked this wording (in the lead). Please let me know if more needs to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything about the breed's temperament.


 * FYI, the old, unreferenced, pre-Dana's-magic version here had a lot on temperament, but all unsourced. Some of it was what was in there 3-4 years ago, but there is a hint that the FEIF was the source.  However, I dug around for awhile there today and didn't find anything.  I DID find a web page that described their temperament on the Canadian Association's web site here.  This page, admittedly PR, says they have a friendly disposition and are willing to please.  Other sites talk about their spiritedness, including the USA organization's "buyers checklist" that has some comments on "willingness" (except they don't explain what they really are talking about), but it's not great.  see here.   Montanabw (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I added in a sentence on their temperament, from the International Museum of the Horse source that I have used in other areas of the article. Please let me know if it is enough. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The first shows specializing in in-hand classes ...". Not being any kind of a horse expert I had to follow the link to find out what "in-hand" meant. A word or two explaining it might be helpful.
 * Short explanation added. Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The first is a four-beat lateral ambling gait known as the tölt." The first of what? The five gaits, or the two additional gaits?
 * Fixed by Montanabw. Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "A slow pace is uncomfortable for the rider and is not encouraged when training the gait." Pobably just showing my horsey ignorance here, but isn't it the horse that's trained, not the gait?
 * Reworded. Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is an article in (I think) Icelandic that appears to be a study of the DNA of the Icelandic and who the breed is related to. May be interesting to look up the English references, but probably later, not in the middle of an FA run. see here Montanabw (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Will have to try to get my hands on some of these when I get home. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus! Your copyediting and comments are much appreciated. I apologize for taking so long to reply to them...RL gets in the way at the most inconvenient times :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Weight Bearing
Can anyone tell us what the typical Icelandic horse's ability to bear the weight of a rider is in kilos or pounds? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Horses are generally considered to be able to carry about 30% of their weight. This can change depending on the breed, individual horse, nutrition, terrain, etc. However, I haven't been able to find anything specifically about the Icelandic horse's weight carrying abilities. They weigh 330 and 380 kg, which I added to the article, which means they should be able to carry between 110 and 125 kg. However, this is OR, and so I can't add it into the article without a specific ref. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Icelandics are known for their ability to comfortably and efficiently carry an adult Icelandic male for distances as they were the principal means of land transport in Iceland for centuries. I would estimate 75-80 kg. This would obviously refer to trail-type riding, not equestrian sports such as dressage, and likely not show jumping. Pitke (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kicking Instinct
I've heard that the Icelandic horse lacks the kicking instinct of the domestic horse. Can someone verify this? Retromaniac (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All horses kick, domestic or feral or otherwise. Some horses and horse breeds have good dispositions and are less prone to kick, or require more provocation before they kick, but ANY horse will kick with sufficient reason. Icelandic horses are reputed to have good dispositions. Still, I would never just walk up behind one and startle it by slapping it on the behind!   Montanabw (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Breed characteristics (life expectancy, maturity?)
This section seems to be missing a basic fact: the average life expectancy of Icelandics. It mentions a couple of outliers that lived to a record old age, but nothing about the average for the breed. (I believe it's fairly long, a third of a century, but we should have some authoritative statement.) T-bonham (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because the life expectancy for all horse breeds is roughly the same - 25 to 30 years. It's discussed in the main horse article, but isn't repeated in each of the breed articles because it would be a lot of duplicated information. Also, I've never come across any source information that discusses the average age of the Icelandic in particular, and I'm iffy on whether transfering information from a broad range of breed (i.e., the blanket statement that all horses live to be 25 to 30 years old) to the Icelandic in particular would be skirting the edges of OR. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I question the amount of "risk" associated with duplication of information in a non-linear, digital context. The main issue with Wikipedia is that slight (unintended) differences in a given piece of information (which should be unchanged from place to place) could be misleading, and that updating each instance (should new information become available) would be a potentially gargantuan task. If those two are major concerns here, I suppose the risk is, then, significant. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JM Archer, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. Was there a question associated with your comment, or did you have a specific concern? Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to question the statements 'Icelandic horses are late-developers' (in the initial paragraph), and 'The breed matures late' and 'structural development is not complete until age 7' in the Breed Characteristics section. Icelandics are 'Equus ferus caballus', and as such they not only share lifespans similar to all breeds (as stated above), all breeds have similar maturity rates, according to research done by Deb Bennett, among others.

Icelandics aren't traditionally trained under saddle until the age of four or five, true - the reasons often given are physical and mental maturity - but stating they 'mature late' implies that other breeds mature early, and from what I've read of Deb Bennett there are only minor variations in maturation rate between breeds (actually more height, neck length, and gender based). Other breeds are ridden younger, but that doesn't mean that they mature younger - she states no breed is skeletally mature before 5 and a half years old.

If stating their lifespan would be considered duplication of information in the horse article, would it not be the same for rate of maturity? Ruralgal (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that source material for the Icelandics specifically point out that they mature later than some other breeds. The material does not point out specific differences in lifespan. Bennett's research is interesting - where has she published this material? Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize the breed literature says that, a quick search shows the same thing said about Andalusians, Lipizzaners, and several other horse breeds, often to explain why they are not trained under saddle until older, or in combination with claims about their longevity. Sources can be incorrect - early breed literature also claimed Icelandics did not kick, spook, buck - and there seems to be a current shift in the description of the body frame for their tolt gait (whole nuther issue sorry). Anyway, 'Icelandics are typically not trained under saddle until the age of four or five, when they are considered physically and mentally mature' is correct, but the part about being late maturing and/or later maturing than other breeds has not been, and in my opinion cannot be, proven, and is misleading.
 * I do not have any of Deb Bennett's books, and the first article of hers I saw on equine maturity was online, although it was also published in numerous horse publications (over 75 according to her). The original article was expanded and can be found see here, it's long but contains lots of info. The section on skeletal maturity begins on page 6. Published references are on page 21, including a paper from the 'American Journal of Veterinary Research' and a reference book called 'Science in Archaeology', and others dealing with bone growth data, which she summarizes and diagrams in her article.
 * I do have two Icelandics, and I try to learn as much about them and horses in general, as I often get questions and I want to give people accurate information. There is information and misinformation out there, but I have no agenda aside from seeking knowledge and accuracy, I hope that's how I come across, please call me on it if not.Ruralgal (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for the information. I have removed the "late developing" phrases from the lead and the body. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural use of gaits?
This is a very nice article, but I'm still left unsatisfied regarding whether all those gaits are useful in a natural environment. When out on their own, will these horses use all of those gaits in response to different circumstances? Does a horse with five gaits have better control over its footfalls to avoid sharp rocks or avoid slipping on ice? Wnt (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, specific breeds have developed special gaits in response to human breeding selection, because they are more comfortable. People breed the horse with the most comfortable gait to another horse with a really comfortable gait, and in time, you end up with a breed where every horse (or almost every horse) has that comfortable gait. However, I haven't really come across any information that discusses this phenomenon in the Icelandic in particular. With this question, and the others above, if other editors/readers have reliable sources that discuss this information in this breed, I would be more than happy to add the information to the article. Just let me know what the source is... Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaited horses in general are reputed to be surefooted. The "singlefoot" nature of the lateral ambling gaits is such that three of the four feet are always on the round, making for a very stable and secure form of locomotion.   While I don't have a lot of specific info on Icelandics, I do know that horses of other gaited breeds DO use these ambling gaits naturally when loose in a pasture (I have personally witnessed this in Tennessee Walking Horses and Paso Finos).  I don't know if a lot of research has been done on the evolution of gaits, but it makes sense that all forms of locomotion must have had some form of natural selection for them to exist at all.  Even some trotting breeds will occasionally amble, given a good reason to do so, usually related to being off-balance or being asked to perform a trot in a manner too fast or too slow for the horse's ability.  None of this can I give you a source document for, however.   LOL!  Montanabw (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Natural Selection"
I'm not sure how much I agree with the inclusion of the sentence "Natural selection has also played a role, as the harsh Icelandic climate eliminated many horses through cold and starvation." Doesn't this essentially just mean "Sometimes, horses die."? I don't mean to be facetious, but it seems an odd choice of content for the article's lead section --PenguinCopter (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, (grin) it means that Iceland is a very difficult place to try and raise horses, and thus the ecosystem played a major role in the development of the breed. There may be room for some phrase tweaking, but there is little debate that the Icelandic horse developed some unique breed characteristics because it developed on the very edge of survival.   Montanabw (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that seems sensible. Is there maybe some further reading on the development of the breed in terms of the competition and the harsh climate? Thanks for clearing that up though. And hey, Merry Christmas! --PenguinCopter (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pic for consideration
And to maybe replace the current, tiny herd picture:

-- Pitke (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pitke, and thanks for the pictures. I'm not really sure what your thoughts behind replacing the current herd pic are? You say that it is "tiny", yet it is not sized to anything, simply the default thumb, which means it is sized by your preferences. I can, however, make it bigger (by using a preference multiplier function), if you feel it would help. To me, the picture appears quite nicely sized, and I am able to see the various horses quite clearly. If you think that one of the other pictures is better for another reason, please let me know. Also, the orange ears are very funky - is this a natural coloring, or did someone get out the hair dye? I like the image of the multiple horses being led by one guy, but I'm not really sure where to put it in the article without squeezing the other images. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well with a larger display, 300 × 225 pixels is really quite small. The current foal picture is even more tiny btw, maybe this or this could be considered to for replace it? There aren't many Icelandic foals available, unless you count the weanlings (?) in this Commons category. Pitke (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well gang, on my laptop, everything looks fine small, oversized images look funny and take up half the page! So to each his/her own, I guess. It's a no-win. However, Dana, this is a good faith offer by Pitke, who has been making a major effort to improve the Finnhorse article and seems to be a pretty good egg (but noogies Pitke for having WAY more energy than the rest of us!) Pitke has also been doing a bunch of work organizing horse images over on Commons, so if we need a photo...  On the other hand, Pitke, I know that replacing photos on an FA like this one is something one really must do with great caution:  Licensing must be absolutely perfect, for one thing, topic needs to be virtually identical as even the captions and neighboring text have been through a gauntlet of fussy reviewers, some of whom like nothing better than to nitpick... So anyway, I have no opinion here, but hugs everyone!  Montanabw (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Big pics can be curbed by coding and preferences, but offer more to people who want to see more. To have small resolution pics in a FA feels dumb, especially now that the Icelandic horse collection at Commons has expanded the way it has. It also will keep expanding too, since I have tons of nice shots on my memory sticks waiting to be uploaded :P Pitke (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the sizing thing. I have switched out both the foal and the herd shots - let me know what you think. As just a general FYI, alt text is no longer required for FAs, which is why I haven't added it to the two new photos. 174.124.225.200 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (That was me, by the way, my computer logged me out for some reason - Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Icelandic horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528111138/http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/the_gaits.htm to http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/the_gaits.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611071848/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/faeroes/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/faeroes/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217214437/http://www.umhverfisstofnun.is/media/fraedsluefni/Lakagigar_enska.pdf to http://www.umhverfisstofnun.is/media/fraedsluefni/Lakagigar_enska.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Icelandic horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527073155/http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/about_the_breed.htm to http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/about_the_breed.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528111354/http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/breed_history.htm to http://www.ihsgb.co.uk/breed_history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208151908/http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/276401.html to http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/276401.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Icelandic horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115140801/http://en.eidfaxi.is/ to http://en.eidfaxi.is/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

History?
Second paragraph is self-contradictory:

"About 900 years ago, attempts were made to introduce eastern blood into the Icelandic, resulting in a degeneration of the stock.[2] In 982 AD the Icelandic Althing (parliament) passed laws prohibiting the importation of horses into Iceland, thus ending crossbreeding. The breed has now been bred pure in Iceland for more than 1,000 years"

What does it mean? It says that it has remained pure for over 1000 years, but it also says that "900 years ago attempts were made to introduce eastern blood" and that in 982 importing of other horses was prohibited. It's written in a way that the event which took place 900 years ago happened before "more than thousand years ago"???????. Could this be clarified? 2.104.41.248 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Icelandic horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227121235/http://www.ipzv.de/69-Verband-.htm to http://www.ipzv.de/69-Verband-.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Iceland Horses/Ponies
I understand that Iceland doesn't allow their horses/ponies to come back to their native home of Iceland once they leave? This doesn't seem right. However, I saw one of your horses/ponies doing the "toit" and I would like to know if you "score" your horses/ponies to enable them to prance around with high steps? If so, I have no use for people who do this to animals. These wonderful animals already do enough for their humans. So please do tell me if you do this to your wonderful animals. 2603:6081:3B06:700:C42B:88AB:F01A:499B (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, this talk page is used for discussion about the article Icelandic horse. If you have a question like this, you could try the WP:RD reference desk maybe. GoldRomean (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)