Talk:Jersey Act

A few comments
Please do not consider this a formal peer review, but I noticed the article as I was placing Jerry Voorhis for P.R. and I read it.


 * 1) 1. The article seems to assume the reader knows the requirements for a horse to be considered a thoroughbred.  Some brief mention of the three stallions should be made.
 * There is no requirement that a horse trace to one of the "three foundation stallions" however. In practice, they all do. But in actuality, each stud book handles their own registration requirements, and one of the reasons for the acts' passage was that British requirements differed from American requirements. British were stricter, but because of repicrocity rules, the British were required to recognize the American registrations, which some British breeders feared would lead to a flooding of their markets.


 * 1) 2. Perhaps make some mention of the fact that the Jockey Club has effective regulatory power over much of the racing industry in the U.K.?
 * The JC handles racing, Weatherby's handles registration (or did at this point in time. It may have changed recently). I've tried to bring this out a bit more.


 * 1) 3. Thoroughbred is capitalized.  Is that common practice?
 * Yes, when you are referring to a specific breed, as this is.


 * 1) 4. I think you really, really need to set out, both in the lede and in the body of the article, and prominently, whether or not the Jersey Act had any effect on the eligibility to race of ineligible horses in the U.K.  I gather it did not.
 * 2) 5. If there's thought of running this for FA, please expand the lede to 3 or 4 paragraphs.  The article likely would need to be considerably expanded as well.
 * 3) 6. Some more info about how the Jersey Act came into force would be nice.  Was there public pressure?  Discussions in the media?  Was it opposed by some Brits?  What was the American reaction in 1912-13?  NY Times archives are free that far back.  And just to say Weatherbys (a company) consulted with the Jockey Club leaves out the actions of people.
 * Actually, there was little discussion in the media, it appears. I point out below the searches in the NYTimes...I'll try some more newspapers, but generally this was of limited impact on non-horsey folks... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the primary editor here (heck, I actually am not sure I have ever edited on this article), but a couple of comments/thoughts. I'll let the primary editor mull over #1 and #2, but perhaps a brief summary may be in order, though note the Thoroughbred article is extremely comprehensive in this regard. As for #3, Yes, Thoroughbred IS capitalized. It's a proper name for a specific horse breed, not a "generic" term for purebred.  Other than that, I'll step aside for now and go back to my popcorn...  Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've placed what I can on the immediate impact, but it's very surprising how little outcry there actually was. Here's my NYTimes search... which showed up nothing that is free. A slightly wider search  still shows nothing pertinent. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More sources...

 * Pittsburgh Press 22 Dec 1943
 * Palm Beach Post 2 Sept 1946
 * Herald-Journal 31 Aug 1946
 * Thoroughbred Times 14 Feb 2000
 * Montreal Gazette 22 July 1948

There are also some pay per view articles from the London Times, but ... I'm not sure I wanna pay for them. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Auwal Abubakar (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Impurity not cured by passage of time
The statement that "by 1949 the impure ancestors of the American bloodlines had receded far back in most horses' ancestry" is false logic. If a horses ancestry was impure, the horse would have impure blood, no matter how many generations had passed.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The point is, surely, that the idea that blood "purity" was a real distinction of any value whatsoever - when measured against MONEY - was ultimately realized to be a ridiculous, meaningless, imbecilic, worthless nonsense. All involved in possession of any amount of wits were finally eager to find any reason to overlook the comical fiction of claimed bloodline - which was utterly unverifiable at the time, in any case. Rt3368 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

profile pic
Need to use pic as profile? Auwal Abubakar (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Great job
Outstanding article guys. And a good reminder that a great article doesn't necessarily need to be a really long article... --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)