Talk:Secretariat (horse)/Archive 2

Archive
Did Secretariat set the track record for all three events in the Triple Crown? (including Preakness record which may have been eclipsed later) In the movie 'Secretariat', there is a Belmont pre-race news conference where Sham's owner states that his horse has finished second twice and beat the track record twice. If this is true (not Hollywood poetic license), then your opening paragraph should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.64.146 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Secretariat set the rack record for the the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He then won the world record for the Belmont. This can be verified here: http://www.secretariat.com/secretariat-history/. Kallimina (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Most likely Sham did beat the previous track record of 2:00 set be Northern Dancer. In 1973 they did not time second place finishes but based on Secretariat's time of 1:59 2/5 it appears that Sham ran the race in 1:59 4/5 making Sham's time the second fastest Kentucky Derby.

The entry for Secretariat says Farma Way won the 1991 Pimlico Special in 1:522⁄5, setting the current track record." Is this so?? Not mentioned in the entry for Farma Way, which horse is not listed as a winner in the entry on The Preakness. 

I created an archive for old discussions. No sense bringing up stuff from 2006. All of the old discussions are in Archive 1, linked above. If it fills up, additional archives will be created. Montanabw (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout a mention of the jockey? That's kind of important, I'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned, right in the intro, wikilinked to his own biography. Montanabw (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with the phrase "Like the equally famous horse Man o' War". Man o' War doesn't hold a candle to Secretariat, and while the latter's legend will continue, the former's story will fade. This phrase should be omitted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.137.246 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately on the list of the all-time greatest racehorses, Man O War is actually #1 and Secretariat #2, so we are sort of stuck with that one.  Montanabw (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "list of the all-time greatest racehorses" if this refers to the Bloodhorse list it was for US racehorses only, as I will continue to point out till people stop implying otherwiseTigerboy1966 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the list includes horses other than American horses. Phar Lap and All Along are two that come to mind.
 * Why unfortunately? Man O' War was a better horse than Secretariat. He carried weight, only lost one race, beat a Triple Crown winner, set more world and track records, and won a race by 100 lengths. Racing fans still remember Man O' War 90 years after he raced. I don't think we can guarantee that Secretariat will have salience in 2063.

The article states that the time Secretariat ran in the Belmont is still a world record for a mile and a half on dirt. His time has been bettered on many occasions. E.g. A NZ mare called Horlicks ran nearly 2 seconds faster in the '89 Japan Cup. The race records still stand. Not sure about the track records? Not sure if this has been raised before or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgardiner2000 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiable sources are needed.  Montanabw (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This depends on how you define a world record. Usually, "world records" are not limited to particular surfaces, because most of the world doesn't have dirt racing. So you really can't have a true "world record" on the dirt. That said, the terminology is used in reliable sources (such as the Daily Racing Form), so it's OK in Wikipedia as long as the surface is specified. Obviously, many turf horses have run much faster than 2:24 (and even Secretariat ran just 2/5ths of a second slower on turf).

Heart size
Article is semi-protected, so I can't edit it right now, but the heart size issue was kept out of this article back in 2006 because it isn't documented and was a direct copy of a documented story about Phar Lap's heart. (You can see Phar Lap's heart here: http://crazyhorsewoman.blogspot.com/2009/01/phar-lap-for-real.html )

The heart size story didn't come out until years after his death anyway; it's not in any contemporaneous reports of the necropsy. Best to keep it out of here as non-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. The first time the heart size story was published was June 4, 1990, more than 8 months after Secretariat's death, by William Nack (who spun a lot of tall tales about Secretariat, but that's really not an issue that can be dealt with in a Wikipedia article). http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136808/index.htm However, my 1959 copy of the Encyclopedic History of Thoroughbred Racing tells the exact same story about Phar Lap's heart-- they were performing the autopsy, and they were shocked to discover the size of the heart. The difference is, Phar Lap's examiner photographed the heart and donated it to an Australian museum, i.e., the story is verifiable. Secretariat's examiner said nothing for eight months and then told an unreliable reporter; the heart was not saved and there are no photographs or autopsy reports that exist that confirm the story.

Under these circumstances, the story is too fishy to be considered encyclopedic. 66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the information is sourced, here to a source more recent than 2006. The condition is a genetic one, linked to the x gene, and has been discovered with several famous horses.  It's weird, but not unprecedented.  I added an additional source used in the circulatory system of the horse article for further verification.  It does not appear to be merely a Bill Nack tall tale.  If there is documented material questioning this assessment, then we could "teach the controversy" and add the opposing views.    Montanabw (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fishy because it didn't show up in the autopsy. Nobody denies that the x-factor may be real; the issue is whether Secretariat's heart size was as big as the fish your great uncle swore he caught that day when nobody was there and he had to throw it back. Actually, one of the things that makes this ULTRA-fishy is the Sham part of it. Sham wasn't even that great a horse. Why would Sham, as opposed to Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Forego, Seattle Slew or pick your favorite great 1970's horse, or some horse from some other era, have the second largest heart of all time? It's the type of thing that is almost concocted to make Secretariat look good.

If this is going to be in the article, it should contain some skeptical language because standard operating procedure if they found a 22 pound heart would be what they did with Phar Lap's-- weigh it, photograph it, put it in the necropsy report, and keep it. Not wait eight months, tell nobody, throw the heart in the grave, and then tell a Sports Illustrated reporter about it.


 * To do so would violate WP:NPOV. The facts are stated:  The heart wasn't weighed at the time, which does of course stand for what it stands for: it was estimated a few years later, after another horse's heart (coincidentally Sham's) was necropsied and weighted by the same vet.  His learned opinion was that Secretariat's heart was probably four pounds bigger.  If you have a SOURCE for someone of equal respectability who has a learned critique of the estimate or wants to call the vet a liar, then source it.  But until then, we must stick to WP:V and present the sources as they are and phrase things neutrally.  Ranting and editorializing has no place in wikipedia. You might want to re-read WP:V also.  Montanabw (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Montana is correct. We can speculate on the talk page all we like, but we have to follow the sources in the article. If you have a source (a reliable one please!) that backs up the information you are giving us above, then please let us know - as Montana said, "teaching the controversy" is always a good thing. Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This individual sounds like the same one encountered a few years back, one who refuses to go to the source directly but instead adds his/her diatribe in places where he/she can't be challenged. Stories of Secretariat's heart size surfaced early in his career, when he was a young two to three year old. Here is a source that few consider suspect. The source is the 1974 Daily Racing Form Manual and the writer is Charles Hatton who had written for the DRF for many years. Here is what he said: "Medical tests indicate his heart (Secretariat's heart) weighs from 14 to 17 pounds, perhaps the largest among champions examined. His pulse is that of a horse physiologically well suited to cracking up oxygen into energy and staying big distances." Now this was Secretariat as a 2 to 3 year old, and certainly the heart continues to grow for at least another year or two. Horses continue to grow through 4 or 5 years of age, or so I have read. The rest is indeed speculation, but from an experienced pathologist. At the least, Secretariat did show early signs of containing an unusually large heart and the pathologist confirmed those early findings. Perhaps the DRF source can be included somewhere in this article. And just a quick note on the earlier discussion on world records on dirt. I believe it should still be considered a world record as long as the 'dirt' qualification is articulated. Dirt and turf surfaces are very different in terms of speed. Turf is a much faster, harder surface and almost always records the fastest times for distances ranging from 1 to 2 miles. The longer the distance, the greater the differential. Historically, turf has ranged anywhere from 2 to 3 seconds faster than dirt at 1.5 miles, and more at 2 miles. Most dirt tracks are found in the states, but they are also found internationally. I believe Dubai runs dirt courses as well. The surfaces are so different that all records should indicate the surface they were recorded on. The amazing thing about the 1973 Belmont was that Secretariat broke the 2:26 dirt barrier by more that 2 seconds which is what would have been expected on a good turf course such as at Santa Anita where the chute leading to the course used to be (or still is) downwardly sloped. rac www.sec@truevine.net  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.212.230 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have an example of a horse whose heart size grew between the time he was FOUR years old (1974) and the time of his death? Let alone one that was 50 percent larger? Look, if the claim was Secretariat has a large heart. Sure, he did. But the claim is that it was a particular size. WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T WEIGHED. Got it? NO documentation. Just a fish story by a journalist who wasn't exactly credible on matters related to Secretariat. It's total hearsay and a Sports Illustrated story isn't a necropsy report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

listen buddy, you call the journalist working for a major magazine less than credible? by implication you indict the magazine itself. you call the pathologist who has worked many years for a major equine research university less than credible. so by implication you indict the university itself for employing a researcher who has character issues and who may even doctor his research. the pathologist was not alone at the necropsy. Dr. William Kaufman, the aged Claiborne veterinarian was also there. He would die 4 years later in sound mind and he never once issued a contradiction to the opinions of the pathologist. If you assert he too is (was) 'fishy', then by implication you indict the entire Claiborne operation for a conspiracy of silence. The burden of proof belongs to you buddy....I have read the necropsy report and it stated only the cause of death and any related issues that may have led to it, like liver disease. Unlike Phar Lapp, the cause of death was known. Unlike Phar Lapp, the necropsy was not exploratory, searching and weighing all possible reasons for a death. Unlike Phar Lapp, the necropsy was perfunctory, required for insurance purposes. As I have said, the lack of empirical proof for the heart weight should be noted, still the story should be told because it led to major heart equine research on this side of the Pacific. The Australians were many years ahead on this topic, but it was not until the observation was made by the American pathologist that serious research took place here. Your reservations are noted, but the story should still be told....Got it buddy????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.105.125 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have always had some trouble with the statement regarding General Assembly and Secretariat: "Like Secretariat in the Belmont, General Assembly never duplicated that performance in another race.". This statement suggests that Secretariat and Assembly could not duplicate them, not that they simply did not do so. Secretariat ran the distance one more time on that course, and on a muddy track; and I don't believe Assembly ran much beyond his 3 year old season. Let me offer a little history to flesh out this point. It took several seasons for Kelso to duplicate his initial Jockey Club 2 mile time of 2:19 and change, a time he ran as a 3 year old. He ran the race several seasons and finally duplicated it at the mature age of 7. John Henry duplicated his initial 1.5 mile turf time of 2:23 a few more times, and had good Santa Anita tracks every time. He was a 5 year old when he first accomplished it. Like Kelso, he ran many seasons and so had many opportunities. (By the way, on the two races Henry ran on the Belmont turf track at 1.5 miles, Henry never came close to the time Secretariat set in the ManOWar.) What Secretariat did duplicate in that second running at that distance and on the muddy dirt at Belmont was break the former track record of 2:26 and 3 set by Gallant Man on a good track. The horse never ran slower than that time finishing the Woodward in 2:26 and 2, and the Belmont in 2:24. I think Andy Beyer in one of his books said that a horse may occasionally run an anomalous race, one so good but unrepeatable. Generally they fall back to their former ways. It is not possible to say what Secretariat, or Assembly for that matter, might have done had they ran a few more seasons. Horses get stronger as they mature. Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid to name a few ran their best as 4s. I would suggest rewording the statement to say "Like Secretariat in the Belmont, General Assembly never duplicated that performance in the races that remained on his schedule." I would suggest something to capture the fact that they never had many opportunities. Also, in regards to Secretariat, when he ran that Belmont, it was during the Triple Crown run, a time when Lucian had him at his fittest. During that time, he weighed out at 1130 pounds. For the remainder of the season he returned to his typical 1155 to 1160; and for those remaining races he was never again as fit and wound up as he was when he ran the Belmont Stakes. russ sec@truevine.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.212.230 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected, but it does not seem that anyone is working on it. Can we get it unrestricted so that it can be worked on and then put it back into semi-protection? I'm concerned with some of the citations listed here to deny Secretariat's heart size. Multiple sources including the ones at the Kentucky Horse park state that "On the day he died in 1989 at 19 years old at Claiborne Farm in Kentucky, a necropsy performed by University of Kentucky veterinary scientist Dr. Thomas Swerczek revealed that Secretariat's heart was roughly twice the size of a normal horse's heart." Dr. Swerczek estimated Secretariat's heart to be at 21 pounds. He did not weigh the heart because he was not allowed to do so. He estimated it based on Sham's heart which was measured to be 18 pounds and yet smaller than Secretariat's. This is cited in  SHAM, IN THE SHADOW OF A SUPERHORSE. by Mary Walsh. Would the doctor not be considered an expert source? He, I believe, still lives in Lexington, KY. Kallimina (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any user with a user name more than four days old can edit the article, the protection just keeps out the vandals, and we had a bunch of them when the movie came out. As you can see, the article does not dispute that he had a large heart, and I am the one who has been fighting with the Phar Lap crowd (who are mortally offended if ANY horse other than Phar Lap is claimed to have had a large heart, it's an eternal edit war on that around here) for ages and ages -- the article's current wording is a carefully crafted compromise  that seems to have toned down the last edit war (if no recent activity, it's due to being tired from the last round).   We have to meticulously source everything on this issue because it is so closely scrutinized, and if you want to add a cite to the book on Sham, read WP:CITE and feel free to put in a properly formatted reference to any new material.  Several people have expressed an interest in an article improvement drive on this article, the trick is doing it right.  I for one would be glad to see it improved to meet the good article criteria, but it takes care to not make this a fan piece.   I don't want to discourage anyone from improving this article, but we must remember WP:NPOV at all times and be careful to not imply that Secretariat was not only faster than a speeding bullet but could also leap tall buildings with a single bound (grin).  Feel free to offer comments and suggestions.   Montanabw (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

With deepest respect, I have to suggest that if the editors of the Secretariat article must meet the standard of "good article criteria", they also must speak to the affection and optimism that Secretariat's accomplishments engendered in the public, and the excitement that surrounded his bid for the Triple Crown. To do otherwise would be a form of misinformation by omission, and less than fully informative for those that want to understand the context and climate in which Secretariat raced, and the factors that contributed to his status as a media darling. Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)ccc


 * WP:NPOV trumps all. This article is nowhere ready for GA yet anyway, but I see no problem with appropriately worded and appropriately-sourced info on his popularity being added.  I just don't want edit wars with the fans of Man O' War, Seabiscuit, Phar Lap and, for all I know, Black Beauty!   Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold Ruler facts in the article
There is an error in the article, and as it is locked, I am listing it here. Bold Ruler ran 4th in the Kentucky Derby, not 3rd. Somethingroyal's half brother Round Table was in the third spot, behind Iron Liege and Gallant Man. Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As soon as you've been an editor for a few more days, you should be able to edit, it's only protected for new and anonymous users. Welcome!   Montanabw (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar and greatness.
Problems with this sentence.


 * "Secretariat is also the damsire of the great stallions Storm Cat (by Storm Bird), through his daughter Terlingua, herself an excellent racemare, and of Gone West, through his daughter Secrettame."

Take out the phrase in the middle and you have:


 * Secretariat is also the damsire of the great stallions Storm Cat (by Storm Bird),and of Gone West, through his daughter Secrettame."

If only Storm Cat is "great" then it should be "stallion": if Gone West is also "great" we need to lose the second "of".

I would prefer to lose "great" altogether, it's a very POV adjective. Better would be:


 * "Secretariat is also the damsire of the stallions Storm Cat, the sire of thirty-two Grade I winners, and Gone West the sire of such notable racehorses as Zafonic, Johar and Da Hoss."Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No Picture of Horse
I note there is no picture of Secretariat himself in the article. Is there an IP reason for this? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright problems finding an image that passes muster with WP:IMAGES. We had a Sports Illustrated cover for awhile, but they made us toss it.  We basically have to do a Fair Use rationale for a non-free image and no one has done it yet.   Montanabw (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
I would still think of this as a start class as there are great screeds of text without references which contain pov statements.

"He had a fine balance between speed and stamina"

"Viewers heard the wonder in CBS Television announcer Chic Anderson's voice"

"He went to Saratoga, long known as the "graveyard of champions", and succumbed to the jinx, losing the Whitney Stakes to the Allen "the giant killer" Jerkens-trained Onion by a length"

etc

On the day I started editing wikipedia in earnest I vowed never to get into a dispute about three things: Secretariat; Sunday Silence vs Easy Goer and the nationality of horses foaled in New Zealand and raced in Australia. I have now broken all three vows. Ah well,  Tigerboy1966   17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * well I've added references and taken out some of the duplication, toned down the pov etc, so it's ok for C. Tempted to get started on all the "x-factor" pseudo-science voodoo, but that's for another day.  Tigerboy1966  18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was good to toss those unneeded adjectives and more refs always good. The x-factor stuff is actually quite interesting.  Once you take out the big heart=better racehorse thing and just look at the issue that some horses really do get these weird gargantuan hearts, it's kind of fun.  I've been dinking around with the bit on it in the Circulatory system of the horse article, too.  But if you really want to dive headfirst into racehorse dramahz, just mention Phar Lap. (Did you make a vow on THAT one?). By the way, I won real money picking Sunday Silence!  Hee hee!    Montanabw (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * tbh, I don't have the science to determine whether the x-factor stuff is pseudo-science or not. What annoys me is the way that the topic hitches a free ride on the back of Secretariat. One sentence explaining that Sec had an unusually large heart which could lend credence to the Circulatory system of the horse theory would be enough for me. The article doesn't for instance have two paragraphs on laminitis, just a brief explanation and a link. If you're ever feeling too happy and need bring yourself down, read the "Edit War" section of the Easy Goer talkpage and feel your will to live slowly draining away.  Tigerboy1966   07:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL! We could move the x-factor stuff to the circulatory system article, to the extent it's not already there.  The main thing keeping it here is probably the war with the Phar Lap supporters over which horse had the (literally) biggest heart.   Montanabw (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection?
Hey Tigerboy and other TPSers: Should we consider requesting semi-protection of this article so new and anon IPs can't edit it? Seems to be a lot of low-level but ongoing IP/newbie edits that add nothing but cruft or "pink ponies and unicorns" stuff. It's kind of a gray area, though, so wondering if everyone else is getting as tired of tossing this stuff as I am. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support this although the problem is that when the protection has been lifted the nonsense will just start up again. Other horses have fans: Secretariat has worshippers. Look at Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century, and you will see how they keep altering the facts to suit themselves.  Tigerboy1966  20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Movie - BAD History
It is important to ensure that the fictional movie "Secretariat" does not creep into this article. Among the more egregious errors are summarized below in a chapter from my draft book "Thoroughbred Horse Racing 101"


 * ** (copyrighted material deleted)**

Regardless of the movie, I still think Secretariat was one of the two greatest horses during my lifetime and nothing herein is meant in any way disparage him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.180.207 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Secretariat (horse). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608080954/http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/Stakes/BoldRuler.shtml to http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stakes/BoldRuler.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120322205053/http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/39-featured/556-secretariat-and-penny-the-inspiring-story-of-virginias-horse-racing-legend-and-the-woman-who-championed-him-emerges-in-a-new-movie-and-book.html to http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/39-featured/556-secretariat-and-penny-the-inspiring-story-of-virginias-horse-racing-legend-and-the-woman-who-championed-him-emerges-in-a-new-movie-and-book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Secretariat (horse). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061022121815/http://www.kentuckyderby.com:80/2006/derby_history/derby_charts/years/1973.html to http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2006/derby_history/derby_charts/years/1973.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081007200220/http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/sec.htm to http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/sec.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Street names and references
I think the only citation still needed is for the streets named after Secretariat. I can easily google that the streets in question exist, though that's scarcely a reference. My bigger issue is whether we can establish that the roads were named after the horse. It seems probable, unless the city planners are big fans of bureaucracy, but I can't prove it. The only reference I can find is about a certain Citation Street being originally called Secretariat Street until the owner objected. Should we just delete? Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't break my heart... ;-)   Montanabw (talk)  03:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Secretariat (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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/sec.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Coin flip
Since this is something that a lot of people I've talked to don't understand, I tried to add some detail on why losing the coin flip resulted in winning two horses. I also note a discrepancy in sources:
 * about the second mare sent to Bold Ruler in 1969: the Woolfe book says Hasty Matelda went both years, the DRF story used as inline ref says Cicada went in 1969. I've left as Cicada
 * about the location of the coin flip, Woolfe says Vanderbilt's office at Belmont, the inline source just says Saratoga. No big deal to me so left as is for now
 * about the date of the coin flip, Woolfe says fall, DRF says August. No big deal so left as is for now, but does mean we went with the DRF story for 2 of 3 of the points, and Woolfe on a third. Note that the article also said Phipps made his selection on December 9, which doesn't fit with either reference so I removed this date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlvsclrk (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes one can note the discrepancies and just teach the controversy.  Montanabw (talk)  18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GA push
I've done a once-through and tagged the problems that immediately jumped out at me. Doesn't mean there are not others. I think we need a to-do list, so I'm starting one. Montanabw (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC):
 * 1) At all times, try for FAC quality in changes, easier to do it right than to do it over! (Which is why this article isn't GA yet!)
 * 2) Reduce or remove redundant material, rewrite awkward content for better flow.
 * 3) Where possible, find better sources for the material that is sourced to Secretariat.com; I don't doubt that most of what is on that site IS accurate, but it is also not a neutral, third-party source. Where we can find nothing better, I say keep the content until we do, but be aware that while it might be OK for GAN, it could be questioned if we ever go to FAC.
 * 4) Ditto for Zipse at the track, it's a blog, and while NEWSBLOG might suffice for a modern horse, here we have entire books written about Secretariat; we can find better sources.
 * 5) Any hardcopy sources we need to try and find a url for at least a snippet view; any behind a paywall need to be so noted.
 * 6) Verify that all citations source what they say they source; I suspect that there is material with an end-of paragraph source that doesn't source the entire paragraph.
 * 7) Make all the citation formatting consistent, using the templates; there are a lot of cites that are not well-formatted.
 * 8) Go to some of the major sources, such as WIlliam Nack's book, and see how many are online at Google Books; (I know of at least two) we should try to reference to the best possible sources where possible, and if needed, use our friendly local libraries if we can only verify a work through snippet view.
 * 9) Source pedigree, racing stats and infobox content
 * 10) Reorganize sections to a more standard format (see, e.g. American Pharoah and other FA-class articles) if possible.


 * For the three-year-old races, a great find was a page at Bloodhorse.com where you can download a PDF of all their 1973 articles on him. An absolute goldmine! http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/special-reports/459/blood-horse-look-back-secretariat-triple-crown-season I have a lot of stuff on his pedigree so I'll be updating that section next., should I strike out stuff on your to-do list when done?  Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we use the postage stamp? http://www.usstampgallery.com/view.php?id=4c78acf09f43b60a4fc7b5108f36970e09c5fb97 Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is some rule on postage stamps and I can't remember what it is, but I shall ping, who probably does know what it is. As for the rest, no need to strike, as I will also be helping on this, particularly the wikignoming and citation.  I'd say just clean up as you go.  I may be bold and do some rearranging but we can always discuss anything that isn't clear.  To get to GA is a sort-of team effort, and to go to FAC will definitely be.   Montanabw (talk)  02:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done some reorganization as suggested and tracked down some sources. I'll go in Thursday and add detail to the 3-year-old campaign from the bloodhorse PDF. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've gone through and updated everything except that portion on the heart, which strikes me as fairly irrelevant but that may be just me. Si.com does have most if not all of their Secretariat articles online, so we can go through them as well if we want quotes. (Bloodhorse didn't do that all that much back in 1973). Have at it, and LMK where you think we could still use more detail. Oh, and how do screenprints work? I own a Super-8 film of Secretariat's triple crown races that I had converted to DVD back in 2009. No idea who has copyright. Is a screenprint from this OK? There are similar videos on YouTube, though the quality isn't as good - 70s film really washes out the colour. I uploaded a few of the screenprints to Wiki commons for reference. Thanks again! Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry I've been such a lazy-butt, have had visitors IRL the last couple of weeks and my wiki-time has been limited to brushfires and other things that require minimal concentration. I'll be looking this over soon!   Montanabw (talk)  18:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you link to the screenprints? I can't find them... Generally, copyright not renewed can sometimes apply to things that were published prior to 1978,


 * The screenprints were taken down by the wiki patrol. I don't think they read my comments about the source. But, yeah, someone may have the copyright but lord knows who. I tweeted one of the pics here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cmj9QAqUkAAn8nG.jpg


 * I'm pretty good at figuring out licensing tags. If you upload it here on WP (rather than on Commons, where they are far fussier) and ping me to look it over, I might be able to find a tag.  Basically, do you know anything about who shot the footage or where it came from?  (i.e. was it an amateur spectator who shot film on a super 8 or was it an actual film production of some sort, like a newsreel or something??) There are some things that, if "published" prior to 1978 without renewing their copyright, are public domain.  On the other hand, an "unpublished" photo or film is not.  It's complicated and tricky.  Montanabw (talk)  23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I tidied up the large heart bit in the death section.

LDR citation format?
Would anyone object to making the citations here into WP:LDR format? Basically, I did for California Chrome, but I didn't for American Pharoah. The advantage is that you don't have to hunt for the full citation because they are all in one place; the disadvantage is that it can be a pain to do a section edit or to add new sources used only once because you have to do it twice, once inline, and then the LDR. But here, I think it might be appropriate and I am willing to be the one to do it. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * my only concern is in the short term that we might get in each other's way while we're trying to resolve particular problems in a section, but have to open the whole document to do the LDR. I get so confused when I have to interweave my update with another that was done while I was editing! But if you think it's worthwhile, I'm all for it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take responsibility for edit conflicts -- I've been around here long enough to be able to fix them. Also, I'll check contribs to see if you are actively editing, or you can just put on the  template to say, "wait until I'm done here" to other editors. This can be an issue, and once there is awareness, one or the other person usually posts to the other's talk page with a heads up. It's all good!  Montanabw (talk)  03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm taking a day or two off Secretariat then will finish up going through the citations. Ooh, I didn't know about the underconstruction template! Still so much to learn! (Getting punch drunk here as you can see from all the !!!!) Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I call it "drinking from a fire hose!" I've been on wikipedia for 10 years now and I am still learning things.   Montanabw (talk)  07:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Update
I took a general whack at the article and while the copyediting and sourcing is a lot better, the problems I anticipate at GAN are as follows:
 * 1) We need to format all the citation consistently with templates, some look "right" in visual mode, but actually are manually entered.
 * 2) We need to replace secretariat.com where possible, or at least pair it with a more reliable offline source.
 * 3) I suspect that not all of the old sources are actually citing what they are supposed to cite, much as I really (really, really, really) hate to do this, we need to make sure of them -- in particular, where there is something sourcing multiple sentences, to be sure it sources ALL of them and not just the last one.
 * 4) I'm all for adding some cute quote boxes (see California Chrome and American Pharoah) and other style elements. #I think we can get away with at least one more fair use image, kept on the local wikipedia server (I saw you tried to get one up at commons but they tossed is) but I'm not certain we can use the photo of the statues that went up after the copyright laws changed in 1978, there is no freedom of panorama in the USA, unless the statues were released into the public domain.  (pain in the butt...).
 * 5) We probably should do up a conformation analysis to go with that chart and then explain why anyone should care.
 * 6) More...?
 * 7) I'm thinking about posting at WP Horse racing that we need some peer reviewers, and perhaps also put it up at PR for a non-horsey person to look at. That could get some fussy people to show up, but that's probably going to happen regardless.
 * So how do we divvy this up?  Montanabw (talk)  05:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll do the citation clean-up, which will tend to take care of the third item too. As for #2, we now use Secretariat.com three times. Two of them are to back up what is said in off-line Secretariat books (origin of name and the charts used to create the racing summary). I just noticed that the BloodhorsePDF reference also contains charts for at least the triple crown races, so we can include that as the alternate reference for at least some of the races. I'll see if I can get a good source for the purpose of the Vox Populi award. I was also wondering if we should create a "pop culture" / "other media" section about all the books, plus the film and documentaries. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Good start for a conformation analysis here: http://www.horsegears.com/secretariat.html 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Jlvsclrk (talk)


 * Point 1, I think I put them all through the formatting template. (I confess, my eyes glazed over a few times!) Anyways, the only thing that's a bit odd is the date format, because I'm using the preferred mdy for date=, but when I click on the calendar button in the template thingie, it populates accessdate with dmy. vexing!!! well, at least it's consistent.
 * I think we've taken care of point 2.
 * Re point 3, I verified the sources do indeed source what they imply they source, or added another source to take care of the missing bits. I took a few sentences out here and there because I couldn't find something, or the old source had vanished or redirected to nonsense.
 * I found some interesting quotes for the Belmont section (see the comments). Wasn't thinking of it earlier, but it will be easy to find good quotes for the honors section by going through the sources.
 * Photos - I'll do the upload of those scans tomorrow (need my other computer). was looking around the house for my old scrap book because I thought a scan of my uncashed ticket from Woodbine must certainly be fair game
 * Link for brief conformation analysis above, and one of Hatton's articles also covers it in depth (see comments). Think we should focus on: hind quarters = power (and yes, should probably say the croup slopes because that's mentioned in every article I've seen that discusses his conformation); shoulder = stride efficiency; girth = heart/lung capacity; neck = air supply, balance; plenty of bone to carry all that weight. I'd write it up myself but I'm not really good at conformation so I'm afraid of making a muck of it. LMK if you'd like me to give it the old college try. Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm baaaack. (Whew) With about 4-5 days of my watchlist to catch up, so will just say that I can definitely clean up anything on conformation, if you can put in the basics with the citations (yes, "vexing" is a good way to put it...)  I think we should put this up for GAN pretty soon, we can continue to improve it until a reviewer shows up and the reviewer will spot any of our errors.  Sound OK to you?   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Eep, here's a problem
Woolfe, Jr, Raymond G. (1974). Secretariat (1st ed.). Radnor, Pa.: Chilton Book Co. ISBN 0801961564. Cited over 20 times, no page numbers. We can't use an entire book this way, we have to pinpoint cite to pages. Was this a book you have or is it an old source someone else used? If we can't find the book, we will have to re-source all the times it's cited. (ouch!) Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  05:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have the book right beside me. The majority of the references are to the charts that are printed on the endpapers, so that's easy enough. I used the book mainly for the early years which aren't covered by the SI and Bloodhorse articles, so I don't have to look through much. I'll get too it tomorrow. Can you use one citation for say chapter 1, or pages x-y, or should it be separate references for each page?


 * I was wondering if we should also break down the Bloodhorse PDF into the separate articles that it contains. I can do this easily enough, it just makes the references section bigger. Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Break down by page numbers, but a 2-3 page range can sometimes be OK if it's a narrative; see how I did the BH PDF. (yeah, that sucks, but if it's charts, we might be able to do multiple cites to the same page...) I'll do the moving of the citations to "sources" and then all we need to do in the refs is say "Wollfe, page X"  (Note what I did for the Mitchell source I added.  I'll look at the Bloodhorse PDF and figure it out, but generally, if a source is paginated, it's best, yes... but that one I can do because I can get at it online. there is also a snippet view of Woofe here, which will be of marginal use, but if it's the same edition you have... or not, but it can at least be a cross-check... if the pages line up...  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I pagenated all the Blood-Horse PDF citations, save for one that I can't find: "In many of his subsequent races, Secretariat hung back at the start, which Laurin later attributed to the bumping he received in his debut." Other than that, I found everything else (nice job, by the way).  If you can do Woolfe, I'll also double-check all the Secretariat.com cites to be sure they aren't standalones, but for now, I'm calling it a night.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and have no fear of the size of the references section, I have over 200 at California Chrome and he hasn't even retired! LOL! Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 10:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, Woolfe done!


 * Yay! You OK if I nominate this for Good Article now?  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  00:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image added
Hi Montanabw ! I uploaded the Preakness file as discussed, thumb|right|insert a caption here, which I like because it shows the connections even if it is a bit blurry. Can you check out my fair use rationale to see if it looks right? Do you think we could use another image from the Belmont? Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I made a few tweaks to the rationale, but I think it will fly. If you can to that winning margin at the Belmont (or at least show him running) that would be cool. Also, if that 8mm has a title, author, director, publisher, it would be good to have full citation for it.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  10:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I went through the 8 mm and it is simply titled "Triple Crown" - no names, dates, logos, nothing. It uses a single camera for the entire race, so there's not much direction involved! Doesn't have audio (there was a separate cassette tape for that - long since misplaced). Most frames of Secretariat in motion have blurry legs and/or washed out colour, though there is one shot from the Kentucky Derby that turned out well. I'll upload that. For the Belmont, the best frame was after the race when Turcotte tips his cap to the crowd. i'll upload so you can see, we can adjust as necessary Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * File:1973_Kentucky_Derby_Secretariat.jpg File:1973_Belmont_Secretariat.jpg Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Tweaked templates. I added the Derby photo.  We might want to consider a news photo for the Belmont, I hesitate to rely too heavily on the 8mm, it may or may not pass muster for multiple fair use images...  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - honors
Just wondering if we pruned the honors section of the infobox a bit too deep. At some point it's overkill, but thought Statues at..., Secretariat Stakes and a few more of the top X listings might be appropriate. Thoughts?


 * There is the honors section of the infobox, that needs to be fairly basic (awards the horse actually won and assorted hall of fame stuff) versus a "Legacy" section in the article body that can mention all the other stuff, streets, stakes, etc. The infobox honors are often dotted throughout the article -- usually with each year's accomplishments, so for those, the infobox summary helps a person find them easily.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As a rule of thumb, if there's is not a WP article about a particular honor, or if there's a slim chance there ever will be, I don't include it in the honorarium box. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Informal peer review
Montanabw asked me to look at the article. I will likely do this a bit at a time, due to lack of.
 * Consider striking the second use of the word "American" in the lede sentence. The link is sufficient in my view.
 * I find the lede paragraph boring. I am not sure that a casual reader would appreciate Secretariat's importance from it. I might mention after the Triple Crown, how he won the Belmont, utterly destroying the field on national television and setting a record for the Belmont that has withstood the test of time. I think the credits for the people involved in Secretariat's success could be shortened to a sentence, or possibly just distributed as phrases throughout the lede paragraph (i.e., "Ridden by Pat Turcotte through most of his career, Secretariat ..." I would suggest moving some of the stuff about his three-year old achievements to the lede paragraph, which would shorten the second paragraph.
 * "He also was first in the Champagne Stakes, but disqualified to second for interference in the stretch. " This could be shortened or eliminated. It's also not clear whether this was the race not won, or a later race in 1972.
 * "but maintained control of his racing career until the end of the season" maybe "but kept the right to decide where the horse should race during the 1973 season"
 * "Retired to stud in 1974, Secretariat ultimately became notable as a broodmare sire." He was already notable. The second part of this sentence seems unneeded except as a way of getting the phrase "broodmare sire" in for the link. Maybe "Secretariat was retired to stud in 1974. His progeny included some successful racehorses, but ultimately he became more influential (?) as a broodmare sire ..."
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I juggled things around a bit, maybe too much, maybe too little! I didn't want to tinker too much with chronology, so moved up the Man o' War stuff from the end to the beginning. Might still break the second paragraph in half, since I couldn't figure how to move more of the Triple Crown record stuff to the first paragraph without getting into that Preakness stakes bit that kind of breaks the flow. Like the change to the wording on his stud career. Is that paragraph now too short though? Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've played with it, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More on lede
 * I would delete the sentence about the timer malfunction, or else change it to emphasize the record.


 * "Secretariat was syndicated for a record-breaking $6.08 million on condition that he be retired to stud at the end of the year." This reads oddly. Syndication, as I understand it, is the sale of the stud rights (it's been a long time since I read Dick Francis) so this is sale of the stud rights on condition he be retired to stud.  Rephrase?
 * I would end the lede with a mention of one of the ratings of his runs as one of the greats of sports history. It is as important that Secretariat remains alive in cultural memory as he does through genetics.
 * Starting in on the body
 * I might defer the mention of the coin toss until you get there, thus deleting the mention that begins the background section, because it makes for a bit of a wandering path. Additionally, the discussion of the Phillip's breeding program and motives can surely be condensed.
 * You might want to make it clearer that it was known at the time of the coin toss that the other mare had not conceived, thus the stakes (winner gets one of the 1969 offspring, of his choice, loser gets other two) were known, that is if I read this right.
 * Jockey Club should be linked.
 * "His heart girth was so large that he required a custom-made girth, " can the repetition of girth be avoided?
 * "He first set foot on the racetrack" I fear the question of whether "set foot" is applicable to equines might distract the reader.
 * "among crowds" possibly "in crowds"
 * I would add something that helps the reader understand the relevance of Secretariat's pre-racing workout times, like "exceptional times for a two-year-old" or some such.
 * "Secretariat's length of stride was considered proportionally large even by the standard of his large frame and strong build." maybe :"Secretariat's length of stride was longer than that of most other horses with similar large frames and strong build"
 * " Turcotte had previously ridden the colt in several morning workouts, but had missed his first two starts while recovering from a fall." I would cut "previously" as surplusage.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Think I got all of these except as follows.

Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as syndication goes, this is the way all of the sources put it. I think the double-take might come from our modern understanding of how syndication works, whereas in Secretariat's time they were still figuring it out. I believe (but can't prove) that he was the first horse syndicated during his racing career, so there was a real issue about who controlled the horse and for how long. The syndication agreement spelled out that Penny got to call the shots for all of 1973, but under no circumstances was the horse allowed to race into his fourth year. (FYI, there was no performance clause as seen in the movie; the only contingency was fertility. There were also no bonus clauses to the price like there were with American Pharoah.)
 * Stride - I can't find the source but at one point Secretariat was reckoned to have the longest stride EVER (estimated at 29 feet from videos), and there was some disappointment that it was "only" 24' 11" when measured. This is still an exceptional stride, comparable to the 25' attributed to Eclipse. So its not just longer than "most" but the source we have doesn't go any further, perhaps because most horses don't have their strides officially measured.
 * Workout times - were pretty slow until the one where he wore blinkers, which was good, and then the bullet work which was very good. It's not until he was three that his workouts started to get scary good


 * A couple thoughts, and sorry I've been absent from this discussion. My thoughts:

I may yet want to do a bit of tweaking on the rephrasing, but I don't have the mental space to think about all this properly, so carry on... FWIW, where we have too many weird horsey words, note that we have two glossaries we can link to. Montanabw (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "Influential as a broodmare sire" - yes, good.
 * 2) I'd keep the coin flip, though tightening it if needed, and putting into context is fine.
 * 3) The syndication deal was retirement at the end of the year, I don't have source access the way Jlvsclrk does, so I shall defer to Jlvsclrk on the history of syndication.
 * Jargon was a concern as I was reading, but as you say, that's easily fixed. I've read all of Dick Francis, so the concept of syndication wasn't new to me, so you might want to have someone who has never heard of it read it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL! Like John Grisham teaches us about the law?  HeeHeeHeeHee....! But feel free to flag any jargon, we can link most of it!  Montanabw (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose so!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "as he had a different owner." unclear than who?


 * Clarified.  Montanabw (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "hitting Our Native in the next stall" to avoid repetition of "stall" suggest "next to him" instead of final four words.


 * Jlvsclrk fixed, I refined a bit
 * I would move the track record into the first paragraph. The `track record is probably the most notable thing about the victory and should be mentioned quickly.


 * Jlvsclrk fixed
 * I think more could be said about the excitement building up to the Belmont. This was probably the sports story of the year, as winning the Triple Crown was thought somewhere between unlikely and impossible.  You might mention, for example, how many tickets they sold for the Belmont, plus any other associated facts: if the LIRR ran an unusual number of race trains, for example.
 * " Secretariat shipped to Arlington Park " was shipped?


 * Jlvsclrk fixed
 * The sections on the various races would benefit from dates.
 * The two times you bring up the x-factor are unaware of each other.
 * The Phar Lap matter seems extraneous, or at the least could be consolidated a great deal.
 * "The life-size statue was installed in the center of the walking ring at Belmont Park until 1988" possibly "remained" for "was installed"
 * "the U.S. Postal Service honored Secretariat in the winner's circle at Keeneland Race Course in Lexington, unveiling a 33-cent postage stamp with his image" If you mean the design was unveiled there, that should be made clearer.
 * You mention the vox populi as tribute to the people's reaction to Secretariat's success. But you don't mention public reaction to what he did very much. If he caused a resurgence in popularity in horse racing in the US, say so more directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Vox Populi award was not created until after 2000; Penny Chenery and her family have been doing a lot of legacy stuff in the last decade. There is no question that Secretariat inspired a lot of people a the time (may I get out my horsey photo albums and my seventh-grade term paper??? LOL), but that was different.   What would be most useful here?
 * Working on them! The excitement in the build-up is covered a bit in the last paragraph of the Preakness section. Should this be moved to the start of the Belmont section? Trying to find sources on crowds/trains but doesn't seem to be much. It was then the second largest attendance in Belmont history, 69K, but that doesn't seem all that spectacular by today's standards when the race is much more heavily marketed. As an aside to Montanabw, at one time you mentioned using a newspaper headline image for the Belmont section. Just found one at NY Daily News archives but not sure about copyright. Do you mind taking a look? Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyright most likely a problem, but actually is one of our gurus on that... does your Super8 movie have that 31-length margin shown?  Montanabw (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It shows a really wide angle at the top of the stretch (the horses are just kind of splotchy dots), then starts zooming in on Secretariat. After he crosses the finish line, there's a 5+ second gap til the second place horse crosses. I read that they determined the official winning margin by by stacking different photos as no one with the right angle could get the other horses in frame. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a whack at a couple of them. Feel free to change anything that didn't work.  Montanabw (talk)

1999 U.S. postage stamp
I'd love to see this image included, but don't know whether the legal debate was resolved (discussed above in the GA review). Did we get an answer from Wehwalt? Article looking very strong for forthcoming FAC. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is. Stamps since 1978 usually are not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also took it to the postage stamp wikiproject and they agreed. Which is depressing, but.  I do wonder about the Time Magazine cover from 1973,  though? (bugging  again.  Montanabw (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if that were usable. Major commercial magazines were quite early to copyright each issue, and even hobby publications were doing it by the 1950s.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even fair use? Montanabw (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ready to roll?
Given that the FAC reviewers will unquestionably want some more tweaks and changes, I'm thinking it's time to rock and roll and put the article up at WP:FAC. The process usually takes about a month and it's basically five or six more people doing what Wehwalt has done for us here. Are we ready? Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gulp! I think it's in pretty good shape. What do you think about an earlier suggestion that we put some of those recognition items as a bulleted list. Second here, second there, thirty-fifth here... Jlvsclrk (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's mixed feelings on bulleted lists. Where only a few items, as here, a narrative form is often thought better. I'd say we could leave it to the FAC reviewers to say one way or the other.   Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I'm ready to weigh on at FAC. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Big Red
Someone should let Cornell or Montgomery Bell know "Big Red" can mean a horse. A much better image to evoke than a stick of a gum. Cake (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or the book/movie about the bird dog! White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

True. Spitfire&#38;Me (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Secretariat (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/20160428053418/https://www.nyra.com/belmont/records/ to https://www.nyra.com/belmont/records/

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) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Secretariat (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 tag to https://nook.barnesandnoble.com/products/9781429968089/sample?sourceEan=9780312382254
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820092248/https://www.loumag.com/articledisplay.aspx?id=37837893 to https://www.loumag.com/articledisplay.aspx?id=37837893

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) 15:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I altered the source for reference with the dead link (Barnes and Noble changed to Amazon).Jlvsclrk (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Secretariat (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/20160707190245/http://www1.drf.com/products/beyers/beyers.html to http://www.drf.com/products/beyers/beyers.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) 17:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bojack Horseman
Hello folks,

Secretariat featured pretty heavily in the Netflix Show Bojack Horseman. I was wondering whether it might be an idea to link these two pages with a section on this page entitled 'Cultural References' or similar.

I'm not quite confident enough in how I would create a new section on a page so I thought I would post here first.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers. Scriveners (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I don't know the show at all but if there's a good source covering references in it to Secretariat, then let us know and we can work it in. Was wondering if we should add the new Audi commercial too. Probably several more such references out there - for example, the novel "Sport of Kings" has a horseracing background that features Secretariat. Could then create a "Cultural References" section. Thoughts welcome. Jlvsclrk (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Found a couple of sources; IMDB [] & Wikia [] Scriveners (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately these sources are not sufficient as neither IMDB nor Wikia are reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS and WP:USERG. See Identifying reliable sources for guidance on reliable sources. CBS 527 Talk 17:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So this is proving harder than I thought it would be, possibly explaining why it has yet to be done. I found an image [] which was from this IndieWire article [] Oh, and also sportingnews [] Scriveners (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See what I did with the "Cultural References" section. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * seems to have been reverted?? Scriveners (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Where do the episode summaries on BoJack_Horseman_(season_1) come from? Maybe the same source could be used? I checked the references, but none of them seem to be the source for those summaries. Are there different rules for referencing when it comes to summarizing a TV episode? Scindix (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism today
The vandalism on the page today has been aggravating enough that I've put semi-protection on it for a few hours to see if we can't weed out a few bad apples as it were. Feel free to downgrade it if it looks like its done its job. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (I thought we always put semi on TFA?). Much appreciated.  Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Euthanasia and disease?
Is his death truly disease-related (per the category that's applied here?) Yes, he suffered from a hoof ailment, but thoroughbreds are euthanized at the drop of a hat, and it does not at all follow that he would have been at risk of death from disease if they had not put him down instead. It seems to be a conflict that he is in both the euthanasia category and the disease-related category at the same time. But it's a grey area. I welcome comments, pro or con! Elizium23 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I tossed those. Neither fits. Laminitis is a metabolic condition, not always fatal, and indeed, euthanasia is so commonly used to relieve the suffering of animals in general that such a death is not a distinguishing feature.  Montanabw (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ITA. FYI, in the case of the type of laminitis he had, euthanasia was the only reasonable option, the condition being so incredibly painful. They would not have euthanized any breeding stallion otherwise, much less a horse as beloved as this one. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)