Talk:Skowronek (horse)

Was Skowronek an Arabian horse?
Editors might agree or disagree with this based on their perspective. To make this most neutral, everyone can agree that he was a stallion. This way there is no disagreement if he was a purebred or partbred horse. Arguing over a single word is not particularly useful. Arabhorseguy (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Skowronek was an Arabian horse, registered as a purebred in the General Stud Book (registration number 552 in that registry) and an ancestor of the majority of registered purebred Arabian horses worldwide. The World Arabian Horse Organization, the consortium of the majority of world Arabian Horse registries, set the definition as “A pure-bred Arabian horse is one which appears in any pure-bred Arabian Stud Book or Register listed by WAHO as acceptable.” http://www.waho.org/arabian-horse-definition-2007/

By this definition Skowronek is purebred. In fact, he was one of the cases used in setting this definition. Not recognizing him as a purebred Arabian horse is actively misleading. When you go to Arabian horse shows and see the horses exhibited in the purebred classes, most of them are Skowronek descendants.

Please note the very long list of stud books that accept this definition on that same page. All of these stud books listed below consider Skowronek to be a purebred Arabian.

"As of 1 January 2015 the following Stud Books are considered acceptable:

Algeria Argentina Australia (includes Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam) Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Belgium Belize Brazil (includes Paraguay; Bolivia) Bulgaria Canada Chile (includes Peru) Colombia Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany (includes Luxembourg) Hungary Iran Iraq Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait	Lebanon Libya Lithuania Morocco Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Oman Pakistan Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Syria Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom (includes Ireland; Malta; Greece) U.S.A. (includes Panama; Mexico) Uruguay Venezuela Zimbabwe Applying Member Countries: Cuba; Yemen"

Also see a very long discussion of this issue, including Skowronek's acceptance in all WAHO registries, inBred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses Since 1800 By Margaret E. Derry, either in the book itself, or it can be viewed online at https://books.google.com/books?id=Hvx4a1wwPwUC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=waho+skowronek&source=bl&ots=gRqP7NGXrJ&sig=d8DbYCKspDzwieUGW1QUgZvwgiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1--PwopbZAhWnq1kKHYRRDFsQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=waho%20skowronek&f=false. The applicable discussions are around page 149, and include a clear distinction between purebred as defined by the registries, and purebred as defined by "all descent from the desert." The latter definition was explicitly rejected by all WAHO registries, which can be confirmed both by the Derry book's discussion of the controversy, and WAHO's explanation of how it defines purebred at http://www.waho.org/arabian-horse-definition-2007/

Skowronek is the tail male ancestor of purebred Arabian National Champions including Khemosabi (US and Canadian National Champion Arabian Stallion, via Skowronek's son Raseyn), first US National Champion stallion Mujahid also via Raseyn, US National Champion stallion Aramus (via the Naseem son Negativ), US National Champion stallion Muscat (via the Naseem grandson Salon), etc. The majority of horses registered as purebred Arabian stallions are descendants of Skowronek, and he is generally regarded as one of the foundation sires of the breed worldwide, along with Mesaoud and Ofir.

12:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Derry source referenced above on page 150 describes the AHRA as follows "It is a private corporation under the complete control of a small and self-sustaining group of people." By this definition all WAHO is is a combination of different small and self-sustaining groups of people from around the world. WAHO mainly exists to facilitate the trade of horses around the world. Germany and Egypt structure their stud books in such a way as to not accept horses that descend from Skowronek because of his well docuemented non arabian blood.

The Bedouin tribes of desert arabia created the Arabian horse. They laid out relatively clear guidelines as to which horses were accepted as "pure" or "asil." The Bedouins, as creators of the breed, get to decide what an Arabian horse is and isn't, not WAHO. There are two disqualifications to a horse being considered as pure, hajin and kadish.

A description of Hajin is detailed here. http://daughterofthewind.org/the-notion-of-asil-in-reverse-what-is-a-hajin-horse/

A description of Kadish is detailed here. http://daughterofthewind.org/the-notion-of-kadish/

A further definition of what is "pure" or "Asil" is detailed here in its connection to the Arabian horse. http://daughterofthewind.org/the-bedouin-notion-of-asil/what-is-asil/

The author of these three online articles is an expert in the Arabian horse was the WAHO keynote speaker during the 2017 WAHO convention in Bahrain. Arabhorseguy (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

WAHO represents somewhat a totalitarian dictatorship when it comes to defining the Arabian horse as a breed. It is a vicious circle of self-confirmation. Of course all the registered studbooks would recognise various individuals as purebreds, if they didn't they would be cut loose and deemed studbooks of nonpurebreds by WAHO. Political game. An important fact to keep in mind is that when most of the western studbooks were created that they contained sections for purebred Arabians vs Arabians. Skowronek, with non purebred Arabians in his pedigree could never be a true purebred. Pretty much a similar case to the current RFI Farid problem. Sharaab (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (talk)

First a correction - it is not correct that Germany and Egypt do not accept individuals with Skowronek blood.

The Egyptian stud books include descendants of Registan, a son of Skowronek. See the pedigree of Ramses Judi, for just one example that I happen to remember. That's why an entirely Egyptian horse may or may not qualify for the Pyramid Society events.

The German stud books include many Skowronek descendants. For an example I can think of offhand, German Reserve National Champion Shakaar Ibn Sanadiva, who goes back to Skowronek through both his sire Kubinec (via Muscat, by Salon, by Negativ, by Naseem, by Skowronek) and through his dam (via Khemosabi, by Amerigo, by Ferseyn, by Raseyn, by Skowronek.)

WAHO is the international consortium of registries. They aren't required to be warm and fuzzy. Registries are what determine which horses are purebred within a given country. Every WAHO registry considers Skowronek purebred.

When you register a horse with the AHA, which is if I recall correctly the new name for AHRA, you get a certificate indicating that they are certified as a registered purebred Arabian horse. I have several of those around here for Skowronek descendants. They are not registered as partbreds. They are registered and certified by the registry as purebred Arabian horses.

We do not register horses with the Bedouins and what they thought really is not the point. It's of historical and cultural interest, and it's vitally important to some clubs and organizations for specific subgroups of specific bloodlines - but not to the registries. There is not a single registry in the world that I know of that uses "what Bedouins thought" as the criteria.

If you want to do an article up on Blue Star, Blue List, the Pyramid Society, Al Khamsa, etc., that would be nice. If you want to claim not qualifying for any of those breeding groups means a horse is not purebred, I'm going to call shenannigans, because being purebred is generally agreed to be an animal listed as purebred in the applicable registry. Skowronek was, and is, listed as a purebred Arabian in his applicable registries.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If he is referred to as an Arabian it should be as a "registered Arabian" or something with "registered" as this is most correct. However, we don't even have a good source for the information on the entire first paragraph of the article. No page number, no content. Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire first paragraph is the lead - it doesn't NEED references if the information is referenced in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether he was registered or not--yeah, I know he was--he was an Arabian. Saying he's registered in the lead and infobox doesn't add anything, and I've never seen a horse article written that way. We normally put the stuff about registration in with the background information in the first section. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Ancestors
Editors that disagree with this section might consider to add well supported content which refutes this. Writing in CAPS about various "DISCLAIMERS" is not useful and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Arabhorseguy (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

IMHO this section should be deleted in its entireity, as approximately 95% or more of all Arabian horses have ancestors with similar issues. This is a horse frequently referred to as "the horse of the century", and arguably one of the most influential Arabian sires worldwide, and the Wikipedia article is primarily referring to ancestral issues that he shares with virtually every other purebred Arabian horse. See Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses Since 1800, By Margaret E. Derry, available online at https://books.google.com/books?id=Hvx4a1wwPwUC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=waho+skowronek&source=bl&ots=gRqP7NGXrJ&sig=d8DbYCKspDzwieUGW1QUgZvwgiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1--PwopbZAhWnq1kKHYRRDFsQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=waho%20skowronek&f=false, pages around 145 - 150, for a detailed discussion of the pedigree issues with Arabian horses in general, not just Skowronek. By hammering on Skowronek's pedigree, it gives the misleading impression that he is unique in that regard. In fact, most registered purebred Arabians have identical pedigree issues. This is not notable and gives significant space and time to what can best be described IMHO as a political issue within the Arabian horse community. See also http://www.waho.org/arabian-horse-definition-2007/ for a discussion of pedigrees and purity and what is considered purebred.

A short summary, noting that he was cited in the controversies drawing up the WAHO definition, and perhaps briefly summarizing the gaps in his pedigree, is far more appropriate than two full sections. Again, these pedigree issues are not unique to this horse. This is how purebred Arabian is defined. See WAHO and Derry sources.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This section could be called many things including "Non-Arabian Ancestors" or "Questionable Ancestors." In the spirit of Wikipedia, it should present well documented facts and be as neutral as possible. I think "Questionable Ancestors" is neutral.

A detailed fact based explaination of the non Arabian ancestors in his pedigree is I think reasonable if the entry on Skowronek is to be complete.

At this time the list of Questionable ancestors and their detailes is not complete. There are more ancestors to add in addition to the ones cited. All are well referenced by the Poles themselves. Arabhorseguy (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

CrabbetGirl - your statement "approximately 95% or more of all Arabian horses have ancestors with similar issues" is relatively true. Which is why I think it is absolutely necessary to include this well documented information on this page. Arabhorseguy (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, to me, something that applies to the very large majority of registered purebred Arabian horses isn't noteworthy.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Skowronek
Skowronek (Purebred Arabian) GSB #552

Color: Grey (White) Sex: Stallion Foaled: 1909

Sire: Ibrahim (Heijer x Lafitte)

Dam: Jaskolka (Rymnik x Epopeja)

Breeder: Count Joseph Potocki. Antoniny Stud. Poland (Russia)

Meaning of Name: Polish word for "Skylark", an Eurasian lark famed for its melodious song.

Sire of 48 registered purebred Arabian foals including his sons Naseem, *Raffles, and *Raseyn, and his daughters *Incoronata, *Rifala, and *Rossana.

Skowronek was the single, sole radical outcross introduced into Crabbet's breeding program in the stud's entire history. He was foaled at Count Potocki's Antoniny Stud in Poland; however at that time Antoniny was held by the Russians, so technically Skowronek was born in Russia. He was imported into England in 1913, brought over by Mr. Walter Winans, who used him as a model for his sculptures and paintings. Mr. Walter Winans then sold him to his friend Mr. Webb-Ware who used him as a hack. Mr. Webb-Ware later sold him to Mr. H. V. Musgrave Clark, under whose ownership Skowronek initiated his show and breeding career. Lady Wentworth acquired him from Mr. Clark in 1920; Skowronek was by then 11 years old. Lady Wentworth campaigned him in earnest and he began to win championships; she also began breeding him to her Crabbet mares.

Skowronek, one of the great stallions of the breed and one with world-wide influence, was an entirely different type of Arabian horse than those previously used at Crabbet. Whereas the Crabbet Arabians were often apt to be dry and reachy, with good shoulders and forehands, and sometimes with good size, but might lack in smoothness, strength, and correctness through the loins, hindquarters and hind legs, Skowronek was a small, more compact, strongly built horse of a different classic type. He did not have the forehand qualities possessed by many of the Crabbet Arabians, but Skowronek definitely brought in the back, hindquarter, and hind leg improvement some Crabbet Arabians needed ~ and he was very strong in passing on his good qualities in these areas, as well as amazingly prepotent in stamping his get with his own type. Maturing to an alabaster white color, he proved an outstanding cross with nearly all the Crabbet mares to whom he was put; the blending of Skowronek with the Crabbet bloodlines proved one of the most auspicious nicks ever made, and the results have had tremendous positive influence through much of the Arabian horse breeding world. Skowronek died in February 1930, but the effects of this blending and his legacy are still seen going forward in his descendants of today.

Highly recommended for further study on Skowronek and his role and place within the CMK Heritage:

Skowronek (3 Pages with an Extensive Photo Collection) by Eva Danø.

Skowronek by Carol Mulder. From The Crabbet Influence May/June 1989 issue and Collectors Vol. 1, 1992.

"A Brief History of the Founding of Crabbet Stud" by Carol W. Mulder. The Arabian Horse Journal, August 1, 1983.

ArabHorseResearch (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to these magazine articles published in 1992 and 1983. In general though, the sources given in the page currently better than the ones given above in that they are earlier, include primary sources of people who actually saw the records in question including members of the family who actually bred the horses as well as Lady Anne Blunt, and/or high ranking Arab Horse officials in Poland in the 1920s. Arabhorseguy (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Carol Mulder is generally recognized as one of the top Arabian horse historians, published in major Arabian Horse magazines all over the world, and her article on Skowronek is considered a classic and is widely available both in print and on the Internet. Removing that reference greatly reduces the value of the article. The articles are widely available, and the Skowronek article was included in the 20th Anniversary Issue of The Crabbet Influence in Arabians Today, page 53. It is a far superior article to the other sources cited. The 20th Anniversary Issue was on sale through 2017, and again, is widely available. Choosing not to buy a reference does not make that reference invalid. If you want one, you could go to ebay or Amazon.com, https://www.amazon.com/Crabbet-Influence-Arabians-Today-Anniversary/dp/B00H5DS85E This reference, and its quotes, should be restored to the page. It gives a summary of the horse and an accurate recounting of his accomplishments, which is more relevant than a series of minor references disputing the WAHO definition of purebred. Cite - page 53, 20th Anniversary Issue, The Crabbet Influence in Arabians Today.

The Guttman book appears to be a self-published book - is that considered an acceptable source? I can literally self publish anything.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Guttmann book's publication information was updated in the article. It was not self published, but this book is mentioned in many other texts, including Lady Anne Blunt's journals and correspondence but Archer and Fleming, they write on pages 482-483 as follows:

"Much has been said and written about the antecedents of Skowronek, a stallion who has influenced Arabian breeding world-wide as a result of his use at stud by Lady Wentworth.

It is not clear when the allegations about his ancestry were first made or upon what evidence they were based, apart from a general suspicion of Polish blood-lines. The first edition of Lady Wentworth's The Authentic Arabian Horse was published in 1945 but it is evident from the footnote on page 205 that the passage dealing with Skowronek had been written some ten years earlier. It is significant that this edition devotes one paragraph of only seven lines to Skowronek. An even brisker treatment is given to the horse in Thoroughbred Racing Stock (1938). It is clear that it was only after the Second World War that there began to emerge widespread criticism of Skowronek, who had died in 1930. By the time she came to revise The Authentic Arabian Horse for its second edition (which was not published until 1962, five years after her death), Lady Wentworth was so perturbed by the "reports, misleading claims and even deliberate fabrications" that she felt obliged to insert an entirely new section entitled "Notes on Skowronek's pedigree". This was an unhappy move for the fresh material was so vague and unconvincing, its tone so blustering and the embellishments to Ibrahim's ancestry so clearly hypothetical, that it can only have helped to convince even the horse's admirers that there was indeed something in his background that she wished to conceal. This would undoubtedly have been the case had Skowronek's dam been, as Lady Wentworth now said, the same Yaskolka that Lady Anne mentiones in her memorandum as tracing to the English Thoroughbred called Anna.

The facts about Skowronek are very clearly set out in Guttmann's Pedigree 11. His sire was Ibrahim d.b. who was imported to Antoniny from Istanbul in 1907. His dam was the mare Jaskolka, by Rymnik out of Epopeja, and it is here that the suspicion of extraneous blood arises for both of these horses have lines that trace back to the stallion Szumka II who was foaled in 1824 by Hajlan d.b. out of a mare called Polka. Guttmann's assertion that Polka was an English Thoroughbred may well be correct and is consistent with Lady Anne Blunt's otherwise unsupported statement that Szumka II was a doubtful sire. One the other hand, Lady Anne heard nothing definite about Polka in 1884, as one might imagine she would have had the horse been a Thoroughbred, and merely supposed, as others had done later, that she was a Polish mare of unspecified breeding. It must also be said that no animal called Polka is given in the Index to the relevant volumes of the General Stud Book. But unfortunately this is also far from conclusive since the names of foals were seldom given in their dam's returns during this period and she could have been exported before her name was registered in the Stud Book. It is possible, moreover, that she was the produce of Thoroughbreds resident in Poland and not England. It is not a matter that will be easily resolved after this passage of time." Arabhorseguy (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen images of the first pages of the Guttman book, the "housekeeping" pages, and from that format, it does have a format that I would expect to see in a limited edition self published book. I have been unable to identify the publisher. If that is a mistaken impression, and I have not self published a book in Germany so I could be mistaken, could you please provide some information on the bona fides of the publisher? Other books they published, physical location, dates of operation, etc? All of the normal things that a publishing house would have? Small animal presses like Silver Monarch may not show up on a Google search, but publishers should be verified to be an actual press that paid the expenses to publish works written other people, not a press that people pay to publish their own work. A self published book should be identified as such, if included in references.

It seems impossible for the Guttman book to be referenced in the Blunt journals as the dates you provided indicate it was published many years after the deaths of the Blunts.

The point of all this is that there is some question of the pedigree of a horse who was foaled over a hundred years ago, who was accepted to his registry of birth and of importation, and is accepted as purebred in those registries and worldwide in the consortium of international registries. I'm not aware of an Arabian horse registry that doesn't accept Skowronek as purebred, and that includes Egypt and Germany.

Polka was a very common name in Poland, and applied to multiple different mares of varying origins. The mtDNA work on Polish Arabian horses has shown common mtDNA lines with desertbred mares, which suggests use of desertbred mares rather than local mares. That's certainly a supporting bit of information, but not probative either and honestly to me this is not a question of particular interest or importance at this late date.

The same issue is true of almost every Arabian horse alive if you go back far enough, and among foundation horses, it's shared by a very significant number of foundation Arabians, not just Skowronek. In fact, rather than having holes in their pedigree, many horses of that era literally have no pedigree. This includes Al Khamsah horses, and if I recall correctly, mtDNA testing unexpectedly showed parentage errors in assigning dam lines to at least one early group of Al Khamsahs - the belief is that they're still Al Khamsah, but not of the parentage in the stud book.

Again, what is the point of going in to this level of detail on this one specific horse?

CrabbetGirl (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Fact vs. Fiction
Sources that cannot be claimed as irrefutable proof should not be posted on a public information page. It is knowingly deceitful and fosters agenda driven propaganda. The only vandalism cited on Skowronek's page is the blatant lies about his heritage. ArabHorseResearch (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a crowd sourced base of knowledge that has specific rules editors and user strive to abide by. It is not irrefutable proof of anything. To say something is deceitful and agenda driven propaganda is really in the eye of the reader, especially about a horse who died 100 years ago. Are there specific facts about the page that are untrue? The sources cited are available in print and digitally in other locations on the internet. Perhaps we can have a discussion about what material would make the entry on Skowronek more complete? Arabhorseguy (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Skowronek article has been pretty thoroughly butchered. This is one of the most influential purebred Arabian sires of all time, a foundation sire of the breed, and the page doesn't even recognize him as a purebred Arabian. The Carol Mulder comments about his accomplishments and influence have been removed, and most of his article has been highjacked by a discussion of the holes in his ancestry - which would be notable if he didn't share it with about 95% or more of every other purebred Arabian. They aren't significant. Meanwhile, the significance of a sire who is in most purebred Arabian pedigrees - a sire whose influence was major and continues to this day - is ignored.

Skowronek's Wikipedia entry is not the place to hash out arguments about WAHO. WAHO came up with a definition of purebred. Skowronek meets it, and he's accepted as purebred in these registries. If you want to argue about WAHO definitions of purebred, do it on the WAHO page. Skowronek is notable not because of undocumented ancestors, which is true of the majority of purebred Arabian horses, but because he was one of the most influential purebred Arabian horses of all time. For even minimal balance, you need to discuss the important things about the horse more than the trivial.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to jump in here as an editor who has been working on horse articles for a couple of years and add my two cents. We don't devote huge sections of the article to short choppy sentences covering a controversy. If there is a controversy, we discuss both sides and move on. The majority of the article should discuss the horse's life and show/racing career, breeding career and influence he had on the Arabian breed, which is huge. Maybe there is a question over whether he was a completely pure Arab, but they didn't have DNA back then and that's fairly common. He's accepted as an ancestor by all the Arab registries I know of, and as far as I'm concerned that means he was an Arabian horse. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the issue of his purity can not be shoved off the table this easily. Whether the WAHO considers this horse a purebred is entirely irrelevant as the WAHO is not an organisation with a breed standard or solid closed bloodpool that defines the breed. WAHO is only a totalitarian regime when it comes to registration. There is a very important difference between purebred Arabians and Arabians. Asil horses are only approx. 4% of the entire Arabian population. Sharaab (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)(talk)

Perhaps we can come up with some type of consensus as to how to describe this horse? Clearly the information on his non Arabian ancestors are well documented and should be included.

We could include a section on his registration, to show that he was registered, but to be complete with regard to that point we need to discuss who gave the information for his registration, what information was provided and the standards of the registration body at that time. All of which is publically available information contained in several sources including "The Crabbet Arabian Stud" by Rosemary Archer, "Nobility of the Desert" by F.B. Klynstra, and "The Arab Horse in Great Britain" by the former chairman of the Arab Horse Society R.S. Summerhays.

The section on his descendants is the most underdeveloped portion of the article. It has no referenced whatsoever.

Skowronek's show career was relatively limited compared to some of today's horses. He also did not have a racing career at all. Arabhorseguy (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018
184.53.49.207 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018
184.53.49.207 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additions and changes to Descendants Section
In an effort to try to work together to produce content among people who hold very different views on Skowronek I suggest focusing on areas where everyone can agree. The evidence on his descendants is uncontroversial and well documented. I propose the content below which all comes from Steen's book on Skowronek on page 179 which has a compelte list of his offspring.

The current content which is not referenced at all should be deleted completely and replaced by the following:

"Skowronek sired 40 horses including 19 stallions and 21 mares born over 8 years from 1920 to 1928. (Steen 179)

Male offspring that were exported from the UK include: Ajeeb, born in 1925 exported to Hungary; Husseini born in 1924 exported to Palestine; Naseem born in 1922 exported to Russia; Ramayan born in 1928 exported to Poland; Raffles born 1926, Raseyn born 1923, and Raswan born 1921 all exported to the USA. (Steen 179)

Female offspring that were exported from the UK include the following: Crabbet Sura born 1928, Incoronata born 1925, Raida born 1922, Rifala born 1922, Rimini born 1923 and Rosssana born 1925 all exported to the USA; Jalila born 1922, Namira born 1928, Nasieda bron 1927, Reyna born 1925, and Shelifa born 1922 all exported to Spain; Nasirieh born 1923 who was exported to Australia. (Steen 179)"

Can we agree on something like this? If you disagree please copy and edit it with changes below my entry.

Arabhorseguy (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted the article to the status quo ante before all this nonsense started. The original "descendants" section has been restored.  But if something like the above is added to what is already there (but phrased better) with solid reliable sources properly formatted, that would be fine.   Montanabw (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we all agree to delete the section on descendants as it is written now with absolutely no reference whatsoever.? Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because we'd basically have to write it all over again. What we need to do is find sources to back up the content and add them. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed with WAF. No, we do not delete it. We add sources.  Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new section named "Influence"
The fact that Skowronek was influential is undeniable. The nature of the influence is the point in question. I suggest we create text that neutrally describes the facts and arugments on both sides. The general ideas are detailed below. If folks want to comment go ahead.

Point of view A He is in 95% of horses registered as "Arabians" worldwide. (I am not sure where the reference for this is but it might be in the WAHO article "Is Purity the Issue") More stuff could be added here about the influence of his descendants etc. But detailed information on his descendants really belong in the descendants section.

Point of view B That because he contains non Arabian blood 95% of the horses that are registered as "Arabian" do not meet the critera set out by the Bedouins. (The Asil Club website and AlDahdah could be the references here).

That's it. Both sides get their say and we move on. Arabhorseguy (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Point of view C - this is not an article about the Asil Club or Al Khamsah or Blue Star or Blue List. Skowronek was registered as a purebred Arabian in England and Poland and is accepted as such in all applicable registries.

The 95+% is for horses that aren't Al Khamsah, is an estimate on the Al Khamsah website. It is not a Skowronek-specific percentage.

What the Bedouins would think of any registered purebred Arabian is, bluntly, irrelevant. The horse is registered as a purebred Arabian and certified as such by its registry.

This issue is not remotely specific to Skowronek and attaching it to him is not neutral. There are hundreds of foundation Arabian horses that don't meet Al Khamsah criteria, and they aren't all getting this level of attention and Wikipedia analysis of their documentation. If you want to talk about Al Khamsah criteria, put it in an article on Al Khamsah. More appropriate there. Add an article on Ms Ott if you want, or one for Blue Star and Blue List. Those are the places to talk about pedigree groups and different criteria for them, not every individual horse's page.

CrabbetGirl (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We could rename the "descendants" section as "legacy" or "influence" (or "descendants and influence"). I favor the concept, but we only need one section, not two.   Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This whole idea of influence cuts both ways. I think it is reasonable to neutrally explain both sides of the issue. Skowronek is arguably responsible for how the Arabian horse world is shaped today for both good and bad.

In an effort to improve the article, can we come up with a rough list of content that both sides would be happy with? Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We already explain "both sides" in the article as it is. There may be room for another sentence or two to expand a bit (if it can be sourced to proper sources), but to declare 95% of the registered Arabian horses in the world are "impure" is clearly a fringe theory (see WP:FRINGE). It is also a marketing ploy by a bloodline group trying to argue that their horses are better than everyone else's, and so commercially motivated.  The bottom line here is that the "criteria set out by the Bedouin" wasn't even consistent, as there were multiple Bedouin tribes, and some of their beliefs did not even correlate with modern science (their belief in telegony, for example).  Raswan discovered this just trying to work out the various strains.  On top of that, modern mtDNA studies have shown that the "strains" don't always even trace to the same matrilineal ancestor. The idea that only the 2% to 5% of horses who have an absolutely perfect provenance in their pedigrees to a specific Bedouin breeder who swore by Allah that the horse was Asil are "real" Arabians is basically silly, and it's been silly for the past 80 years.  So drop the stick.   Montanabw (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No editing at all by either user during the dispute
I think it is fair that neither of you edit the article at the moment. Please do not tell me it is only syntax or something minor and non-controversial. Let's have a bright line here. Get consensus before modifying the article. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the recent edits are entirely wrong-headed. Large chunks are sourced to here, which is not really a great source - besides all the citations going to the main page of the website which supports none of the information being supposedly sourced to it. Other issues:
 * "Szumka II does not trace to any horses bred by the bedouin tribes of Desert Arabia. Lady Anne Blunt also comments about the origin of Szumka II in her journals." is sourced to Anne Blunt's journals - does that REALLY say Szumka doesn't trace? And why are we using a primary source (the journals) instead of a secondary scholarly source?
 * "Polka, born 1800 at Slawuta;[7] Polka, born 1808 at Slawuta;[7] Sawicka, born 1810 at Slawuta;[7] Kwiatka, born 1810 at Slawuta;[7] Kobyla, born 1805 at Slawuta;[7] Szweykowska, born 1800 at Slawuta;[7] Demianka, born 1819 at Slawuta;[7] Woloszka, born 1810 at Slawuta;[7] Anielka, born 1811 at Slawuta;[7] Milordka, born 1810 at Slawuta;[7] Iliniecka, born 1815 at Slawuta." is not decipherable - what does this mean? How does it relate to Skowronek? Gibberish.
 * "Szumka I, a black stallion foaled in 1805 at Slawuta. Sired by a horse named "Gnaidy" which means the color "Bay" in Polish" is sourced to "Google translate" which patently doesn't support the first bits at all. And again - what relation does this have to the subject of the article?
 * All power to Anne Blunt ... but her comments are just that - her opinion. It needs to be born in mind that she had a vested interest in promoting her own vision of what an Arabian horse was - which does not make her the ultimate arbiter of what one is.
 * "Lady Wentworth bought the Skowronek under circumstances that remain a bit confusing even today. Clark believed he was selling the horse to an American exporter, but at the last minute, the export was cancelled and Lady Wentworth suddenly was the owner of Skowronek. Clark was a rival Arabian breeder, and Lady Wentworth may have used the agent as a front; concerned that if Clark had known she was interested, he may have increased the price - or refused to sell the horse at all. Clark was not happy with the result, and the two breeders had a somewhat cool relationship after she purchased the stallion." is sourced to this site, which appears to be self-published.
 * Quite frankly - this version is vastly superior to the current one - without the confusing gibberish, bad sourcing (except for the stuff sourced to horsedatabase.com - which needs a better source), and plain OR. Yes, Skowronek has some controversy attached to him - but no major Arabian horse registry considers him anything but purebred - nor do most breeders of Arabian horses. Tellingly - horses with his bloodlines have been exported to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. The WAHO considers him purebred. And the current state of the article is just a bunch of OR and POV-pushing of a fringe position that needs to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Added - as for Steen The Man who bred Skowronek - it appears to be self-published - see WorldCat entry. Check out the Amazon listing, where the only review is from an "AKS" ... likely to be the author. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I pitched all of it and restored the status quo ante, and . The hash made of the original article is impossible to sort out, so I applied WP:TNT. I support adding more footnotes to known-reliable source, but I concur with Ealdgyth that a lot of the stuff that was added is at best WP:FRINGE and was not sourced to reliable sources.  As usual, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or for SYNTH.  I created a new section below where a shorter discussion can occur.  Montanabw (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So the portions that were recently deleted have much better references than any current piece of information that is on the page. Do we even have book published by a University Press that that Skowronek was even an Arabian horse? No. We don't? And if there is concensus to call him an Arabian, it should be as a "registered" which is factually correct and supportable. Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

My rough estimate based on the sources referenced in the current article, all of which I have in my possession and have read carefully, is that 80% of this article is garbage and does not meet the Wikipedia standards for information. Should we scrap the portions that are poorly referenced and start again? Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not agree - Edwards is hardly a poor reference. Nor is Mulder. Wentworth is a bit more preachy, but still an excellent reference. this site is the only dodgy reference, and it only references one paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment on all of the above
I just got here, not having edited WP in several days. In short, I am going to revert this article to the status quo ante and we can go on from there. The "Skowronek was not a real purebred" thing is basically a WP:FRINGE theory and we can discuss it further, but it's not going to dominate the article. As stated, the longstanding position of mainstream Arabian organization is that Skowronek was a purebred Arabian, and though there is controversy, which can be discussed, self-published and obscure sources are not suitable here. Montanabw (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a further thought about what Montanabw has said. If you think about it, all breeds of horses came about via crossbreeding of some type. If you go back far enough in the pedigree of any notable purebred horse today--doesn't matter if it's an Arabian, Thoroughbred, Tennessee Walking Horse, Saddlebred, whatever, you will eventually find ancestors not of that breed. Using that kind of logic, you could argue Man O' War was not a real Thoroughbred because he, like all TBs, went back to an Arabian sire. Arabians are the oldest or one of the oldest pure breeds in the world, but that doesn't mean they did not come from somewhere else. Maybe they did cross some other horses into them at some point: did it ruin the breed? Not that I can see. It probably helped keep them from getting too inbred and developing more genetic problems than the few they have. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The issues described above are hardly fringe issues. The German language version of this page provides quite a bit more detail on Skowronek's questionable ancestry.

Information that is not based on a good reference does not belong on Wikipedia. The original version of this page is poorly referenced and about 70% of it should be outright deleted. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not agree. Edwards, Mulder, and Wentworth and fine references. They easily meet the WP standards for reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the section on his descendants, which can probably be mostly referenced with sources from the Naborr article, everything is sourced to reliable references. Like Ealdgyth said, Mulder and Edwards in particular are excellent sources on the Arabian horse. (I haven't seen the Wentworth book.) And by the way, we only delete things that are copyright violations or something like that, not content somebody doesn't like. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * One WP article is not a source for another. Whatever de.wiki says, if there is a source there worth considering, it can be mentioned here, but they have the same rules about self-published sources and fringe theories that we do, and if that article is being ignored save for a few fringe theorists, well, I don't speak German and I'm not the one to fix it.  The issue of the "purity" of Skowronek is a fringe theory.  There are some experts that argue that his pedigree is not perfect, which is true, but the same is true of most Polish-bred Arabians, which was a slam that the "straight Egyptian" or "Asil Arabian" crowd has been using to bash the bloodline for the last 40 years at least.  the issue has long been settled by all mainstream Arabian breeding associations worldwide. And, I have a copy of Wentworth; if anyone wants to add the  or  tags where appropriate, go ahead and we can work on that.   Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Pedigree controversy
Ladies- If you want to make a change to the article concerning his pedigree controversy please don't waste your valuable time unless there is consensus among the editors. Its just going to get reverted.

It appears that some editors agree that the current version is not suitable. Let's try to come up with one that we can all agree on.

Here are some of the sources to consider for this.

Lady Anne Blunt Journals and Correspondence. Editors Archer and Fleming, they write on pages 482-483 as follows: "Much has been said and written about the antecedents of Skowronek, a stallion who has influenced Arabian breeding world-wide as a result of his use at stud by Lady Wentworth.

It is not clear when the allegations about his ancestry were first made or upon what evidence they were based, apart from a general suspicion of Polish blood-lines. The first edition of Lady Wentworth's The Authentic Arabian Horse was published in 1945 but it is evident from the footnote on page 205 that the passage dealing with Skowronek had been written some ten years earlier. It is significant that this edition devotes one paragraph of only seven lines to Skowronek. An even brisker treatment is given to the horse in Thoroughbred Racing Stock (1938). It is clear that it was only after the Second World War that there began to emerge widespread criticism of Skowronek, who had died in 1930. By the time she came to revise The Authentic Arabian Horse for its second edition (which was not published until 1962, five years after her death), Lady Wentworth was so perturbed by the "reports, misleading claims and even deliberate fabrications" that she felt obliged to insert an entirely new section entitled "Notes on Skowronek's pedigree". This was an unhappy move for the fresh material was so vague and unconvincing, its tone so blustering and the embellishments to Ibrahim's ancestry so clearly hypothetical, that it can only have helped to convince even the horse's admirers that there was indeed something in his background that she wished to conceal. This would undoubtedly have been the case had Skowronek's dam been, as Lady Wentworth now said, the same Yaskolka that Lady Anne mentiones in her memorandum as tracing to the English Thoroughbred called Anna.

The facts about Skowronek are very clearly set out in Guttmann's Pedigree 11. His sire was Ibrahim d.b. who was imported to Antoniny from Istanbul in 1907. His dam was the mare Jaskolka, by Rymnik out of Epopeja, and it is here that the suspicion of extraneous blood arises for both of these horses have lines that trace back to the stallion Szumka II who was foaled in 1824 by Hajlan d.b. out of a mare called Polka. Guttmann's assertion that Polka was an English Thoroughbred may well be correct and is consistent with Lady Anne Blunt's otherwise unsupported statement that Szumka II was a doubtful sire. One the other hand, Lady Anne heard nothing definite about Polka in 1884, as one might imagine she would have had the horse been a Thoroughbred, and merely supposed, as others had done later, that she was a Polish mare of unspecified breeding. It must also be said that no animal called Polka is given in the Index to the relevant volumes of the General Stud Book. But unfortunately this is also far from conclusive since the names of foals were seldom given in their dam's returns during this period and she could have been exported before her name was registered in the Stud Book. It is possible, moreover, that she was the produce of Thoroughbreds resident in Poland and not England. It is not a matter that will be easily resolved after this passage of time."

Another link posted by CrabbetGirl is Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies and Arabian Horses since 1800. This was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2003. This source is quite detailed and lays the whole debate out fairly clearly. The important parts of the argument on on pages 148-149-150 https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Hvx4a1wwPwUC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=waho+skowronek&source=bl&ots=gRqP7NGXrJ&sig=d8DbYCKspDzwieUGW1QUgZvwgiI&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=waho%20skowronek&f=false

Both of these sources reference Guttmann's 1968 book, "The Lineage of the Polish Arabian Horses."

Sourcing from Edwards and Wentworth is really not very serious, even the Crabbet lovers and Skowronek lovers know that stuff is all out of date and garbage.

What are the thoughts of the other editors? Arabhorseguy (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we've already weighed in - it's pretty much one person pushing the idea of the controversy being covered in great depth. Quite frankly - this is a fringe theory in Wikipedia terms. Check most mainstream publications about Arabian horses and you'll not see any doubts attached to Skowronek's pedigree. For example - Gadzer's The Arab Horse Families of Great Britain doesn't mention any controversy. Nor does Conn's The Arabian Horse in America. While Edwards mentions it, she doesn't devote much space to it. Nor do most of the various recent magazines delve into it. Myself - I'm agnostic on the whole thing. I've owned Al Khamsa horses and I also have owned non-AK horses - in fact I own two grandchildren of Khemosabi right now - so I don't really have a horse in this race because quite honestly it's silly. But, I think the current article strike about the right balance on how much coverage it devoted to the issue. It must be remembered that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a horse magazine. We're covering the basic facts and the coverage should be concise. We aren't writing position papers on the controversy - that's what the various horse magazines/blogs/books are for. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way - consensus does not mean unanimous agreement ... it's probably a good idea to read WP:CONSENSUS to see that one editor without much policy-based arguments can't really claim consensus against a number of other editors with policy-based arguments. Continuing to revert multiple editors will likely lead to blocks. (I'm involved so I can't possibly block). And ... inserting information into a sourced sentence that is NOT in that source is falsification of sources ... a big no-no that should not be repeated.  Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Read pages 148-149-150 mentioned in the link above. The evidence is there plain as day. The author breeds cattle. The line of argument that this is a fringe theory is garbage and you know it. You need consensus to edit and you don't have it. So either leave it like it is, or get consensus. Arabhorseguy (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , we are done with this discussion.  has explained the situation to you, we already use Gladys Brown Edwards as a source, both Ealdgyth and I own Edwards and Conn, I own the later edition of Wentworth, and I also own Derry.  You have misrepresented Wentworth already (with earlier edits) and are simply not producing any source material beyond that which was already considered by other experts.  Along with the two of us,  also can review online source material and concurs, as does   and .  Consensus is clearly in favor of Skowronek's purebred ancestry, and you need to stop reverting and edit-warring.   Montanabw (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The facts just don't support the current version of the text or your new edits Montanabw. I am open to including the information you would like to include, but we should also have to include a 1-2 paragraph summary of the information contained in Archer posted above, Derry, and the WAHO 1998 publication which is available online, and I have included relevant details below. This way both viewpoints are presented. It is reasonable and IAW Wikipedia's guidelines on the presentation of information.

Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn cattle, collies, and Arabian horses since 1800. By Margaret E. Derry. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003. Pages 148-149.

WAHO next examined pedigreed to prove lack of desert descent in AHRA-recorded stock. It was not hard to do, as is clear from the example of Skowronek’s recorded ancestry. The stallion’s background showed that he could not be traced, through complete and accurate documentation, to desert breeding. WAHO claimed the AHRA knew of Skowronek’s undocumented background as early as 1926, but that did not stop importing of the grey stallion’s progeny.

Skowronek, the great breeding stallion of the Crabbet Arabian Stud, had been bred by Potocki at the Antoniny Stud in Poland, foaled 1908, and later imported to England by an American. Shortly after his import, Lady Wentworth acquired the horse. To register him in the GSB, Wentworth had to go to his breeder for papers authenticating his past. The Potocki family supplied the following information. Skowronek’s sire, the grey stallion Ibrahim, had been brought to Poland in 1907 by Potocki. The animal, said to have been purchased in Odessa by a Potocki agent who had brought the horse from the Orient by way of Constantinople, was documented as sired by Heifer out of Lafitte. Skowronek’s dam, Jaskulka, had been bred in Poland from Polish stock. Registration in the GSB on the strength of this information certified Skowronek as purebred, a fact that gave his progeny automatic access to the Arabian Horse Registry of America, in turn implying at all his ancestors could be traced to desert breeding.

Even though Skowronek held pedigree status in the GSB, Wentworth decided to invent a more glorious ancestry for his sire, Ibrahim, than “sired by Heifer out of Lafitte” and for his dam Jaskulka, than merely “Polish breeding.” Skowronek reminded Wentworth of the ethereal horses her parents had found in Egypt at Ali Pasha Sherif’s stud in its final days. Because Ali Pasha Sherif was credited with preserving Abbas Pasha lines, Wentworth connected Skowronek with Abbas Pasha breeding, the fount of all Arabian horse authenticity. “Skowronek” she wrote “though foaled in Poland, returns by both sire and dam to the old Abbas-Crabbet strains.” Wentworth used Lady Anne’s diary to prove that the sire and dam of Ibrahim could be traced to strains of Abbas Pasha, and also to the same strains that the Blunts had acquired. Skowronek’s dam, Wentworth claimed, was known to be pure Arabian, and she too, as evinced by Lady Anne’s work descended from Abbas stock. No proof, of course, exists that either of Skowronek’s parents descended from Abbas Pasha lines. The Potocki family reaffirmed the background of Skowronek’s sire. The son of Skowronek’s breeder, Joseph Potocki Jr., prepared a statement some years later making it clear that Ibrahim’s pedigree could not go beyond the names given for his sire and dam and therefore could not be traced to Abbas Pasha breeding. “I have jotted down these memories of Skowronek and Antoniny,” Potocki wrote, “hoping they may interest those who possess his offspring in their breeding establishments. I am anxious to remove any doubt which may have arisen concerning his true and authentic pedigree.”

Real evidence exists not only that Skowronek’s dam, Jaskulka, did not come from Abbas Pasha lines but that she was not even purebred. A history of the Sangusko family stud, written in 1876 and published in the United States in the 1960s, stated that all imports of Arabians by that family before 1818-19 had been stallions. Purebred mares did not come into the Arabian breeding herd until later. Stallions imported before 1818 bred local mares and, over time, cross-bred mares that resulted from these unions. Thus all horses that could be traced to the pre-1819 Sanguszko stud records (as could Jaskulka) should not be described as purebred. In effect, they were bred up. Equally damning evidence about the impurity of Jaskulka emerged through comments made in 1900 by Prince Roman Sanguszko (1837-917) about horses at Slawuta (which was of course connected to Antoniny). The prince claims that in 1900 the operation at Slawuta had no purebred Arabians and that all the horses traced at least in part to local horses. His animals did not, he stated, descend on all lines from desert-bred imports. Later it would be argued that some of Jaskulka’s ancestors listed in the family records came from specifically known non-Arab lines of the Slawuta stud.

WAHO Publication Number 21, January 1998 “Is Purity the issue?”

Selected Quotations

At least 90% of AHRA registrations today trace to stock bred during the first half of the 19th century in the Slawuta/Chrestowka studs of the Sanguszko family in the Ukraine, in an area which had previously been part of Poland but was then under Russian rule. In 1900 Prince Roman V. Sanguszko (1837-1917), who had acquired the stud from his uncle in 1860, wrote that all his remaining stock had some amount of non-Arab blood. In a letter published in 1900 he wrote, "At present I have no more pure-blood Arabians (i.e. born of imported parents); the last of these was the stallion "Attyk", which was sold in 1899." (Attyk's pedigree, found in the PASB in Chart 25, shows his great-grand-dam as the imported mare, with his sire, grandsire, and great-grandsire also imported.)

Referring to a proposal to create a Russian studbook with a separate division for "those animals that have even the slightest drop of non-Arabian blood", he stated categorically: "This would apply to all my horses, since I have at present none born from original desert sires and dams." He asserted that his remaining horses had "some amount of local non-Arabian blood or blood the Arabian origin of which cannot be proven (from one-fifth to one-third)", and that they were "without any infusion of alien blood (excepting local mares)." He advised that the proposed stud book "should include all genuine Arabian horses (whether pure- blood or thoroughbred), i.e. all animals descended exclusively from imported desert brood-stock without a drop of alien blood, but also the horses of the more reputed Russian studs having a minimum of 66% Arabian blood, this being duly proven." [Sherbatov & Stroganov, The Arabian Horse, A Survey, 1900, translated by G.I. Vassiltchikov, 1989 p131-134]

Skowronek, in 90% of AHRA pedigrees through *Raffles and *Raseyn, traces to all 8 great-grandparents of Pruszyna.

The presence of "local mares" in the pedigrees of the Sanguszko "pure-bred" Arabs was reported by Lukomski in his 1906 study of the Sanguszko and Potocki studs. He also noted that "even if the progeny of the Slawuta stud is not of so pure an origin as e.g. the Arabs of Count Dzieduszycki ... whose whole stud descents from three imported desert bred mares and desert bred stallions only, yet they are rightly regarded as pure bred Arabs ....". [Das Arabische Pferd in Slawuta und anderen Gestuten des sudwestlichen Russlands, 1906. Olms Press reprint 1979. Skorkowski translation]

Borowiack's 1914 study of the Branicki studs stated "The foundation stock of "Polish horses" as the base of the breeding must be estimated as successful" and that "the admixture of the Polish blood' of tap-root mares decreased with time to such a degree that it was difficult to see it in the exterior. In fact we may speak of an Arab breeding in every sense of the word".. (Die Arabische und Anglo-Arabische Pferdezucht der Grafen Branicki in Bialocerkiew, 1914. Olms Press reprint 1979. Skorkowski translation in Arab Breeding in Poland, 1969.)

According to the PASB, its "purebreds" were derived from the studs of the Branicki, Dzieduszycki, Potocki, and Sanguszko families. (The Potocki Arab stud at Antoniny was considered a derivative and branch of the Sanguszko stud, after the mid-19th century marriage of Count Potocki to a Sanguszko daughter whose dowry included a large portion of the Sanguszko horses.) Here again we see a definition of purity based on the derivation of stock from acceptable western sources rather than an insistence upon an entirely desert pedigree. (PASB 1932, p. iv, ix).

By the 1960's the actual origin of the Polish Arabians was a matter of published records in America. An 1876 history of the Sanguszko stud written by Prince Roman Sanguszko the Elder (owner of the Slawuta branch of the stud 1845-1860 and of other branches of the family stud until his death in 1881) revealed that the actual Sanguszko importations consisted of stallions only until 1818-19 when the first Arabian mare was imported. ["The Story of the Princes Sanguszko Stud", Prince Roman Sanguszko, 1876. Originally published in Jedziec i Hodowca (Horseman and Breeder), official publication of the PASB, Nov 1933. Translated by Count Joseph Potocki, and reprinted in Arabian Horse News, February 1965].

Dr. Edward Skorkowski (Secretary of the Arab Horse Breeding Society of Poland and compiler of the pedigree data for the PASB), considered the foremost authority on Polish pedigrees, wrote that "A continuous admixture of the blood of desert bred Arabs caused the distinctly Arab type of the Slawuta horses." He also described the Sanguszko and Branicki Arabs as "Horses developed by continuous improvement by desert bred Arabs", thus differing "with regard to descent" from the Dzieduszycki Arabs whose descent was based on the families of imported Arab MARES. ["Studs Before World War I", originally published circa 1965 in Your Pony magazine. Reprinted 1969 by Your Pony in Arab Breeding in Poland.]

It might be appropriate to point out that the development of the Polish Arabian from Polish "native mares" crossed with Arabian and other oriental stallions was exactly similar in pattern to the development at the same time of the English Thoroughbred from a foundation of native English mares crossed with Arabian and other oriental stallions, the major difference being the documented presence of quite a number of Arab mares in 18th century Thoroughbred pedigrees. It is therefore difficult to justify a claim that the admitted non-Arabian elements in early 19th century Polish Arabian pedigrees are somehow different in kind, or "less impure" from those derived from a Thoroughbred mare introduced into early 19th century Hungarian Arabian breeding.

A 1968 book, in German and English by Ursula Guttman, documented all the existing PASB pedigrees back, in most cases to pre-1818, to either the original imports or the animals of unrecorded ancestry. (Apparently, a copy of Guttman's book on microfiche was included by the AHRA in its initial mailing of the AHRA microfiche studbook circa 1981.)

In 1969, a year after its publication, a member of the AHRA board commissioned a study of it and of Polish pedigrees from Gladys Brown Edwards. Edwards’ report confirmed that "certain foundation mares are unknown". The instructions given to Edwards are revealing of the AHRA attitude toward the need for secrecy: "If you decide there is reason to tabulate or refer to specific horses which have been imported, please do not refer to them by name, but use a code system of your own device." The instructions also reveal that, rather than asking that purebred Polish pedigrees be traceable in every line to the desert, Edwards was specifically instructed to ignore any "unknown" blood in determining whether they were pure-bred or part-bred. (This is rather like saying that the offspring of an Arabian and a grade mare could produce a purebred Arabian, but the offspring of an Arabian and any recognized breed could not.)

"We in America do not subscribe to a notion that one can breed up a group of grade horses to become purebred Arabians, even if purebred sires are constantly employed. However, if any impure horses were used but were all back in the early 1800's and purebred sires have been used since that time, the project may be terminated. A statement that there is no practical problem worthy of consideration will suffice. I hope that will be the result. If part-bred sires were used originally and linebreeding has occurred so part-bred sires have been used on part-bred mares, it would be helpful to know the magnitude or degree. Unknowns' may be disregarded for the purpose." [Letter, D Marshall to Edwards, Dec 9, 1969; Edwards to Marshall, Dec 29, 1969]

That none of these Polish Arabians were traceable entirely to "Arabia" or "the desert," or even to the "orient" or "Arab world", and that this was known to at least some of the registry's directors is amply demonstrated by the published pedigrees in the 1932 Polish stud book and by the pedigrees and statements in registry director J.M. Dickinson's 1937-1947 catalogs. By Dickinson's own admission in 1947, Skowronek's ancestress Matka" is simply known as an Arab mare of the Slawuta stud, her actual sire not being identified by name" (in point of fact he is not identified in any way at all; in any known record he is simply a blank), and "Matka's dam, Iliniecka, was an Arab mare known to have been at Slawuta Stud in the eighteen twenties." In his words, with respect to Iliniecka and other "taproot" mares from the old historical studs of Poland "something has to be taken on faith". [A Catalog of Traveler's Rest Arabian Horses, J.M. Dickinson, 1947, reprinted 1988 by Arabian Horse Trust, pages 29 & 31]

Two other registry directors at the time of the Polish reciprocity agreement were also on record as being aware of the problems. The registry's president from 1918-1939, W.R. Brown, was aware of them as early as 1926. In April of that year he wrote to W.K. Kellogg, who had just that month imported the first Polish blood to America, through 3 Skowronek offspring from England. Brown transmitted to Kellogg a quotation from a Dutch friend that Skowronek had "a lot of doubtful ancestors (which may be seen from the books of Lukomski, Verlag Schikhartt)".

Three years later in 1929, Brown included Lukomski's work, and that of Dunkelberg, another German who had studied the pre-WWI Polish studs and mentioned the native Polish elements in their pedigrees, in the bibliography of his own book. Kellogg joined the registry board not long after, and both men were still on the Board when the registry concluded its reciprocal registration agreement with the Polish Stud Book. [Private letter, W.R. Brown to W. K. Kellogg, April 24, 1926, File #00150, W. R. Brown Library, Arab Horse Owners Foundation]

However the registry directors might have misconstrued or overlooked statements in the Polish language in the Polish stud book, or in the German language in Lukomski et al., it would have been difficult to overlook or misconstrue the published statement in English by the president of the Polish registry, which appeared in the British Arab Horse Society magazine in 1935, two years before the AHRA board concluded its reciprocal arrangement with the Polish registry. According to Count Alexander Dzieduszycki, President of the Arab Horse Breeding Society of Poland from 1925 to 1945, "The basis of the Polish breed of full-bloods was therefore an Oriental material, attained by the crossing of imported Arab stallions with Polish mares, the breed of which had also been improved by centuries of intermixture of Arab blood". ["The Breeding of Arab Horses in Poland", The Arab Horse, An Annual Journal, Arab Horse Society, England, 1935, reprinted in The Journal of the Arab Horse Society 1935-1938, Alexander Heriot & Co, Ltd., 1979, p 32.] Arabhorseguy (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All very interesting and stuff - but it still doesn't stop the fact that the relevant registries consider the descendants of Skowronek as purebred. FOr that matter - even Al Khamsa breeders are careful (usually) to state that non-AK lines are purebred - it's just that the documentation is lacking. Not having had contact with the Asil people from Europe, I can't speak to them. (We won't get into the games that the Pyramid Society played to exclude one breeder's horses because one of the PS founders had a feud with that breeder...) Again - we're an encyclopedia - not a journal of horse pedigree research. We cover information briefly. We don't need to go into great depth. And if there is some non-Arabian blood in the Polish Arabian lines tracing to the 1800s, well, this isn't exactly something limited to just those lines. As I recall, there's documented proof of the exact TB mares that were crossed into South American Arabian lines much closer than the early 1800's. And it's not just Arabians - Thoroughbreds had the same controversy over the American Stud Book's recognition of Lexington. In fact - the UK put an embargo on lines tracing to Lexington for a number of years - see Jersey Act. Much more recently - I can show you where Percheron, Shetland, Arabian, Morgan, Standardbred, Saddlebred, and even some European Warmbloods went into the Quarter Horse (the warmbloods are some of the horses that the US took as reparations after WWII - interesting story there sometime). There isn't a breed of horses that doesn't have some impurity. (And we won't even get into the crazy idea that the "desert-bred" is the ultimate test of purity - recent DNA analysis shows that the vaunted "strain breeding" of the Bedouin isn't accurate either. See here.) My suggestion is that you write the above up into a journal article and submit it to the various Arabian horse magazines. It is entirely too much detail for this article or for any wikipedia article. And large chunks of it are what wikipedia would call synthesis (see WP:SYNTH) or original research (see WP:OR). Quite frankly, the above looks like someone trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or similarly tilt at windmills. It doesn't belong in wikipedia. (Please note that my comments above about purity of various lines/breeds are ALSO considered OR or SYNTH by wikipedia - the difference is that I know they don't belong here. In fact, the QH stuff is what I do outside of wikipedia, and I'm very unlikely to WANT to publish it here because I'm better off (as you would be) getting paid for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The information I have placed above is hardly original, and has been written about by WAHO itself. It's hard to call something Fringe or RigthGreatWrongs if its coming from WAHO. The fact is that the current section on "Pedigree Controversy" is simply not factually accurate. If Wikipedia discusses the subject, it should at least present both sides of the issue and move on. The current article does not do that. Neither do the edits by Montanabw.

Arabhorseguy (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I"m sorry - but this is what's in the article right this moment "Some Arabian enthusiasts questioned if Skowronek was in fact a purebred for two reasons. First his sire, Ibrahim, was desert-bred and imported to Poland via Turkey, but because of this route of importation, some claimed the stallion was actually a Turkoman horse. The other challenge was because the Poles also crossed Arabian stallions on Thoroughbred and other non-Arabian mares, leading some researchers to question the accuracy of the stud books." Which seems to be a quite accurate (if concise) summary of the above. We don't need the level of detail given above. We are an encyclopedia. Just as we don't go into great depth on any subject - see for example Horse, where the multitude of books/articles/news reports/etc on the subject are distilled down to just under 7900 words. That's what encyclopedias do. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I also own Derry, by the way.  When you read the entire section in context, it is clear that WAHO noted that a number of Arabians have "undocumented" lineage.  The ancestry of Jaskoulka is questioned, but WAHO long ago decided that Skowronek (and many other horses, including other Polish-bred horses not related to Skowronek) was acceptable as a purebred. Derry's sources for footnotes 27 and 28 combine a number of theories, and basically the issue is whether pretty much ALL Polish-bred Arabians are "impure"— or not.  The Al-Khamsa crowd says yes, and that's partly because they just want to sell more horses of their preferred lineage.  WAHO's conclusion was that "purity" was not the issue, and in doing so, they cited to several examples of "straight Egyptian" horses accepted by Al Khamsa and the Pyramid society that also had questionable pedigrees—or as Ealdgyth noted, perfectly good pedigrees of horses with the "wrong" owner. We have a concise paragraph that discusses the issue and per WP:UNDUE, we don't need to natter on endlessly about it.  I can add a wee bit from Derry and clean up the Wentworth material, and that should settle the matter.  Montanabw (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, Ealdgyth & Montanabw - the encyclopedia doesn't need to include all the fringe based on anecdotal evidence. The facts as documented by the breed registry and what formed the registry are all that's needed as it pertains to the registry itself. Summary mention of the other information that can be cited to RS is fine but no need to elaborate because then we're getting into UNDUE. Atsme 📞📧 22:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So what's clear is not how many editors agree or disagree with respect to what is UNDUE. What is critical is what reliable sources reference Skowronek's pedigree controversy. And with this respect, you ladies have no case. I have provided 3 excellent secondary sources, Derry which is published by a University printing house, Archer which is published by a well known UK publishing house, and a publication from WAHO. They are unassailable.


 * On the other side, you ladies reference Wentworth, who is a primary source and the relevant section on Skowronek's pedigree was published in 1962, and Edwards book was published in 1968. Both of them fail to give references and many of their points have been debunked over the years.


 * Archer publishes the Journals and Correspondence in 1984 which provides new information. The WAHO article is from 1998 and gives great detail on the Skowronek issue and puts it in historical context. According to WAHO WR Brown knew about Skowronek's pedigree problems in 1926! Whats the big secret?!?!? Lastly, the Derry text in 2003 is probably the best and rolls up the information that came to light in the last 60 years quite well and in a very balanced and clear manner.


 * The current text on the pedigree controversy is really a smokescreen to distract attention from the real issues of Skowronek's non Arabian ancestors.


 * I think that 1-2 simple paragraphs summarising Derry is sufficient. As a reliable source, I don't think it gets much better than her. This is entirely reasonable and IAW Wikipedia standards on information, reliable sourcing and what is DUE and UNDUE. Arabhorseguy (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant text from Derry yet again. If Wikipedia actually strives to present relevant information in a clear and neutral manner, a 1-2 paragraph summary of the content below should be included in the article.


 * Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn cattle, collies, and Arabian horses since 1800. By Margaret E. Derry. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003. Pages 148-149.


 * "WAHO next examined pedigreed to prove lack of desert descent in AHRA-recorded stock. It was not hard to do, as is clear from the example of Skowronek’s recorded ancestry. The stallion’s background showed that he could not be traced, through complete and accurate documentation, to desert breeding. WAHO claimed the AHRA knew of Skowronek’s undocumented background as early as 1926, but that did not stop importing of the grey stallion’s progeny."


 * "Skowronek, the great breeding stallion of the Crabbet Arabian Stud, had been bred by Potocki at the Antoniny Stud in Poland, foaled 1908, and later imported to England by an American. Shortly after his import, Lady Wentworth acquired the horse. To register him in the GSB, Wentworth had to go to his breeder for papers authenticating his past. The Potocki family supplied the following information. Skowronek’s sire, the grey stallion Ibrahim, had been brought to Poland in 1907 by Potocki. The animal, said to have been purchased in Odessa by a Potocki agent who had brought the horse from the Orient by way of Constantinople, was documented as sired by Heifer out of Lafitte. Skowronek’s dam, Jaskulka, had been bred in Poland from Polish stock. Registration in the GSB on the strength of this information certified Skowronek as purebred, a fact that gave his progeny automatic access to the Arabian Horse Registry of America, in turn implying at all his ancestors could be traced to desert breeding."


 * "Even though Skowronek held pedigree status in the GSB, Wentworth decided to invent a more glorious ancestry for his sire, Ibrahim, than “sired by Heifer out of Lafitte” and for his dam Jaskulka, than merely “Polish breeding.” Skowronek reminded Wentworth of the ethereal horses her parents had found in Egypt at Ali Pasha Sherif’s stud in its final days. Because Ali Pasha Sherif was credited with preserving Abbas Pasha lines, Wentworth connected Skowronek with Abbas Pasha breeding, the fount of all Arabian horse authenticity. “Skowronek” she wrote “though foaled in Poland, returns by both sire and dam to the old Abbas-Crabbet strains.” Wentworth used Lady Anne’s diary to prove that the sire and dam of Ibrahim could be traced to strains of Abbas Pasha, and also to the same strains that the Blunts had acquired. Skowronek’s dam, Wentworth claimed, was known to be pure Arabian, and she too, as evinced by Lady Anne’s work descended from Abbas stock. No proof, of course, exists that either of Skowronek’s parents descended from Abbas Pasha lines. The Potocki family reaffirmed the background of Skowronek’s sire. The son of Skowronek’s breeder, Joseph Potocki Jr., prepared a statement some years later making it clear that Ibrahim’s pedigree could not go beyond the names given for his sire and dam and therefore could not be traced to Abbas Pasha breeding. “I have jotted down these memories of Skowronek and Antoniny,” Potocki wrote, “hoping they may interest those who possess his offspring in their breeding establishments. I am anxious to remove any doubt which may have arisen concerning his true and authentic pedigree.”"


 * "Real evidence exists not only that Skowronek’s dam, Jaskulka, did not come from Abbas Pasha lines but that she was not even purebred. A history of the Sangusko family stud, written in 1876 and published in the United States in the 1960s, stated that all imports of Arabians by that family before 1818-19 had been stallions. Purebred mares did not come into the Arabian breeding herd until later. Stallions imported before 1818 bred local mares and, over time, cross-bred mares that resulted from these unions. Thus all horses that could be traced to the pre-1819 Sanguszko stud records (as could Jaskulka) should not be described as purebred. In effect, they were bred up. Equally damning evidence about the impurity of Jaskulka emerged through comments made in 1900 by Prince Roman Sanguszko (1837-917) about horses at Slawuta (which was of course connected to Antoniny). The prince claims that in 1900 the operation at Slawuta had no purebred Arabians and that all the horses traced at least in part to local horses. His animals did not, he stated, descend on all lines from desert-bred imports. Later it would be argued that some of Jaskulka’s ancestors listed in the family records came from specifically known non-Arab lines of the Slawuta stud."Arabhorseguy (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * One to two paragraphs is indeed undue weight on this. Especially for an article of this size. And I'll note that this article does NOT claim what Wentworth claimed about Abbas Pasha lines - so arguing about that is not helpful because it's not in the article. And you don't have to repeat the quotation from Derry twice. There is no need to WP:BLUDGEON other editors with information already given. (and bludgeoning is a sign of pushing a fringe position). Unfortunately, my copy of Derry is already packed up and in storage. I'll try to get it through ILL but it might take a bit. But again, it doesn't matter ... we cannot say that Skowronek or his descendants aren't purebred because ... they are included in the purebred registries. The WAHO may say there are possible issues but they continue to require registries to include the descendants in the purebred sections of the relevant registries. I know of plenty of Skowronek descendants who are being bred in the Middle East by breeders who extol the virtues of the "desert-bred horse". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This statement in the text is directly disputed by the Derry and WAHO sources. We need to change it. "Skowronek's dam Jaskoulka (variously known as Jakolka, Yascoulka or Yaskolka; from Polish jaskółka, "swallow") was a Polish-bred purebred Arabian." Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone show me a source that supports this statement that was recently added: "*General Stud Book states 1909, Potocki pedigree states 1908 **"d.b." denotes "desert bred," indicating Middle East origin and no further named ancestors in the pedigree." Where is it said that "desert bred" indicates Middle East origin? Please prove this. Otherwise I will revert. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This statement by Edwards is unsupported. I can find no evidence that accusations like this were actually made against Ibrahim. If no one can come up with an actual accusation that calls Ibrahim a Turkoman horse because he came from present day Turkey prior to 1968 when Edward's text was first published, other than the straw man argument that Edwards makes, I'm going to delete this as poorly referenced content which is consistent with largely everything Edwards says about Ibrahim. Here is the current text "Some Arabian enthusiasts questioned if Skowronek was in fact a purebred for two reasons: first, his sire Ibrahim was desert-bred and imported to Poland via Turkey, but because of this route of importation, some claimed the stallion was actually a Turkoman horse.[10]" Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is also unsupported and should be deleted: "Nonetheless, due to this controversy, some private breeders' organizations, such as Al Khamsa, exclude descendants of Skowronek." Unless someone can come up with a source I'm going to delete it later this week. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabhorseguy (talk • contribs)

This portion of the pedigree is unsupported: Derwisz born 1858 as desert bred. There is no evidence that this horse has a strain or a Bedouin breeder. It will be deleted unless someone can come up with some evidence to support the statement. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If we put up a pedigree this sentence is repetitive and unnecessary. "Jaskoulka's pedigree shows that her sire was Rymnik and her dam was Epopeja (also spelled Epopeia or Epopya).[14]" I'm going to delete it unless someone objects. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup
Before any discussion of new content, I thought it appropriate to start cleaning up the sources in the status quo ante version of the article, and am doing so. Tagged a couple spots with, on the presumption that they can be sourced (nodding to , who also has the books). Where there was an obvious error (such as the remains of Skowronek at the museum), I fixed it. Montanabw (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Follow up: Also added a pedigree chart, which I think reflects current scholarship on who the horses were. Cleaned up most citations and I think at this point, what's in there is fully sourced to respected, reliable sources that are complete and if on the web, linked to live or archived working URLs. Montanabw (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The pedigree portion was removed for 2 reasons.
 * 1. It relates to the pedigree controversy.
 * 2. The information stating Ibrahim's sire and dam were desert bred and of the strain of Saglawi Fatili are unsubstantiated. It is not on the information Potocki gave the Arab Horse Society, you can check on the CMK website which the article references. In addition, Edwards does not give a source for this information. She is a secondary source and gives no reference for this information. It's not a good source. Arabhorseguy (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Edwards was one of the leading scholars of the Arabian breed and as such was probably more reliable that either Wentworth or Potocki.  Montanabw (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored the pedigree minus Ibrahim's ancestry as a compromise while discussion continues. I'll note that the CMK website uses the Polish breeders own words to substantiate the fact that Ibrahim was desert-bred - so above it's argued that we should not trust the breeder's family for the desert bred status of Ibrahim but trust the breeder's family for the difficulties in the dam's side of the pedigree. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * From Potocki “The only authentic pedigree for IBRAHM’s son is the one issued in Antoniny in accordance with our stud books and which, acting for my father, I confirmed in London in 1919 and 1920. Any extension on IBRAHIM beyond his sire, HEIJER, and dam, LAFITTE, is not authentic.” The horse was bought in Odessa from Constantinope. Nothing more about this horse is known.


 * I think the best way to handle the pedigree if you want to include one, is to just put the photo of Skowronek's pedigree on the CMK website on the page. I think including a pedigree raises more questions than it answers so it is OK with me.


 * The major problems with Skowronek's pedigree extend much further beyond this pedigree, so while it is informative, its really just a filler to distract from the issues. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We include pedigrees on almost all horse articles in wikipedia, it's a desired standard (see the 9,000 or so articles we have here on Thoroughbreds); the pedigree was an omission that needed to be added. It stays. The only debate over the named horses in the pedigree (as far as we have it on WP, anyway) is if the sire and dam of Ibrahim were named, and I'm fine leaving it as "desert bred." I did add a note below the pedigree explaining the possible names, as they are all over the web and if we merely omit them, then surely someone will come and add them back in.  Montanabw (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing dispute
On 15 February, Montanabw added a large number of citations to support text which she had written several years ago. One of them was to add the citation of Archer pg 108 to the following sentence: "Research of Jaskoulka's pedigree shows that her sire Rymnik and her dam Epopeja (also spelled Epopeia or Epopya) both traced to Abbas Pasha horses.[12]

I have looked at this source. On page 108 and 109 it gives the following information about Skowronek:

"IMPORTED HORSES INTRODUCED AFTER LADY ANNE BLUNT'S DEATH

SKOWRONEK

A white Kehilan Ajuz stallion. Bred at Antoniny, Poland 1909 by Count J Potocki. Imported by Mr. Walter Winans. Sire: Ibrahim (Imported to Poland from the east by Count Potocki). Dam: Yaskoulka, by Rimnik, out of Epopeja, by Dervish out of Lyra. Snow white. Splendid arch of neck and crest. Exquisite head, small, sharp cut ears. Enormous strength and breadth of back and loins. Tail set high and arched very high. Dancing prancing action. Purchased in 1920. Died February 1930"

No references are given for this information in Archer.

No mention of Abbas Pasha is on the page. Montanabw is falsifying her research. The puts into doubt the quality of all the citations she has added now and in the past. The editors should delete all of them now and start from scratch. If new citations are added, the exact quotation of the source should be added to the talk page for others to reference. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Another example of Montanabw's research falsification is the following statement which she sourced to Edwards pages 214 and 216: "The Bedouin tribe that produced the desert-bred Ibrahim was also identified, along with the strain name of his sire and dam.[13]" No such information is given by Edwards on these pages. This should be deleted unless Montanabw can somehow quote the relevant text in Edwards which support her edits, which is impossible since it is not written in the text she references. Arabhorseguy (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPA. Please strike your accusation of "falsification." I was doing my best to make minimal changes to content, just to source what was there.  Be aware that we cannot copy sources word for word, we must summarize the content in their own words. I added sources to content in the article where it could be sourced. Given that this article was created about 2007, when sourcing standards were less stringent, and not much has been done since, it is not surprising that it needed some additional sources added.  As to the additions, my edition of Edwards, bottom of page 214 and top of 216 (p. 215 is all photos) states about Ibrahim, "... it has now been proved he was indeed bred in the desert... with the tribe that bred him identified, as well as the strain of his sire and dam." The Google link I provided to the Archer book was a snippet that verified sire and dam, as you noted: "... Dam: Yaskoulka, by Rymnik out of Epopeja, by Dervish out of Lyra."  The Abbas Pasha material was in the article earlier, and I can remove it for now, it's not real clear and I cannot locate the source that originally provided that info (though Lady Wentworth makes a claim), so I'm fine leaving it out, at least for now.   Montanabw (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

To anyone wondering why I am reverting her, she is clearly disruptive. sigh... BigSkyMan (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

, it may seem clear to you, but "disruptive" is rather a vague insult in this context, and deleting citations is not an impressive way to win a disputed point. Please see the note I have left on your talk page, it does seem rather likely that your account is connected with one of the others recently active on the page. If so, you really should declare it. Moonraker (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * edit warring is disruptive also. So is unconstructive edits such as removing periods at the end of sentences or restoring phrases such as “ bought the Skowronek” or the removal of qotations by the owner of the horse. Just saying something is disruptive is not a free pass to edit war. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this or letting bad edits stand more disruptive? BigSkyMan (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , you are trying to short-cut the process of discussing things here. It would be better to have a grown-up discussion and try to arrive at a consensus. If you can prove your claims about "disruption", you will have an advantage. Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * and, thank you. Just for the record, the WP:BURDEN is on the person trying to add or change from the status quo ante to cite and source content.  FWIW, I went in and sourced the existing original article content as a starting point before expanding or making significant changes.  I also added some elements standard to almost all horse "biographies" on WP. Another editor commented above that one bit wasn't properly verified, and so I tossed that content.  As for the above blocked account, I've had a sockpuppet hounding my edits across wikipedia for about a month now, using multiple accounts, and this appears to be yet another manifestation. Sorry it spilled over here.  Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who this BigSkyMan person is, but I do know that his/her actions are disruptive to the work we are trying to do on this page. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Back to Montanabw's edits, this sentence is unsupported:
 * "The Bedouin tribe that produced the desert-bred Ibrahim was also identified, along with the strain name of his sire and dam.[13]"
 * In the Edwards text she cites as a source for this the author contradicts herself. Edwards claims Ibrahim was desert bred and imported via Turkey and that the strain the tribe that bred both his sire and dam are known. She then later theorises a typonym for the strain of the dam from the name “Lafitte.” For the sire she says “sired by a horse called Hejar who’s strain is indefinite." The strain and tribe that bred both his sire and dam are in fact not known. She fails to mention any tribe whatsoever, theorizes strain of his dam, and admits she does not know the strain of the sire. This combined with statements by the owner of the horse, Potocki, explaining the pedigree of this horse do not support Edward's theories either. He very clearly states: “The only authentic pedigree for IBRAHM’s son is the one issued in Antoniny in accordance with our stud books and which, acting for my father, I confirmed in London in 1919 and 1920. Any extension on IBRAHIM beyond his sire, HEIJER, and dam, LAFITTE, is not authentic.” There is no evidence that Ibrahim is desert bred and the tribe that produced him is unknown, and the strain of both his sire and dam are not known. This sentence should be deleted. Its based on an unreliable source. I'm sure Montanabw can carefully read sources, so its strange that she blatantly misrepresents what the author of the sources she cites says.

Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This sentence is also unsupported and should be deleted: "Nonetheless, due to this controversy, some private breeders' organizations, such as Al Khamsa, exclude descendants of Skowronek." Unless someone can come up with a source I'm going to delete it later this week. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the above you discuss that is now sourced to Edwards in the article is, as such, highly reliable, certainly more so than the self-published sources you provided earlier. Edwards' books were not footnoted and she didn't necessarily mention all her sources, but she was in her time the foremost authority on the Arabian horse in the United States.  We have sourced the Al Khamsa material now.  Your position is clear: You basically are making the arguments that have been made by other bloodline groups that Polish-bred Arabians, and Skowronek in particular, are not "real purebreds" because of all the various arguments put forth above.  You also went out and vandalized at least three other articles to identify the horses there as "partbred Arabians." So this is really quite enough, and your tl;dr is noted, but the article is not going to be changed to say that Skowronek was a "partbred" because that is definitely a WP:FRINGE viewpoint (particularly when that viewpoint would now probably exclude about 95% of all living Arabians from registration).  Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Registan
http://www.shahadastud.com/index2.php?option=definition&lang=en Is quite clear that Registan is excluded from the Pyramid Society. “ With reference to the exclusion of the horse Registan,“ and the third point of horses that are eligible says “ a horse, other than a horse having Registan or Sharkasi as a lineal ancestor” is eligible for the Pyramid Society. AK only accepts three Polish lines, and Ibrahim is not one of them. I’m less clear about the European Asil Society...as I’ve not dealt with them. Nor am I as clear on the Blue Star folks, they may accept Skowronek. But Registan exclusion from being SE is due to Skowronek. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * this, by the way, resolves the problem of the above. Proving that Skowronek is exluded from AK just needs the fact that neither he nor his sire (the original desert bred-claimed horse) are listed as acceptable ancestral stock in the AK roster, which is available online. Another source is https://desertarabian.org/what/library-archives/egyptian-bloodlines-explained/ . I’m on a tablet so can’t add the sources right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Asil club is a European group similar to Al Khamsa, I think. The Pyramid Society is a straight Egyptian group that excludes some Al Khamsa horses (such as the Davenports, if memory serves).  But all three have different rules.  I think the "Blue Star" group, that argued that the other three weren't strict enough in their exclusions (I think they felt the Mu'niqi strain was "impure" — you know the one attributed to the Darley Arabian), is now defunct. Sigh.   Montanabw (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed
Hi, Ealdgyth - I removed this edit for two reasons - (1) It is not sourced, and (2) the one source I cited in my edit summary made the get of Registan an exception, not an exclusion per the 3rd bullet. Do you have a source that specifically states otherwise? If not, the statement needs to be removed. Best...Atsme 📞📧 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page. I provided a source there along with a discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And yes, I"m in cranky mode today - but this should be ON THE TALK PAGE. Too many folks discuss article content on user talk pages, which makes it difficult to follow conversations about content. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never thought of you as a crank . Thank you for providing the citation with a full explanation. I get cranky when the wrong terminology is used - such as the ambiguous use of exception; e.g. rule - long sleeve shirts must be worn in the show ring, (with the exception of really hot days). SMirC-wink.svg Atsme 📞📧 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloodline clubs and groups and cliques in the Arabian industry are a real annoyance sometimes. They are mostly for marketing a "my horses are better than your horses" viewpoint. Don't get me started on the PRyamid Society (typo intentional). LOL! Montanabw (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Skeleton
"17 pairs of ribs, five lumbar vertebrae and 16 tail vertebrae" Why is this noteworthy? I presume the average encyclopedia reader doesn't go around counting ribs and vertebrae on horses. Please add an explanation to the article. Also, if these numbers represent anything out of the ordinary, it would be interesting to know if any of Skowronek's offspring shared similar traits. (And of course what the usual range for these numbers is in regular horses.) --BjKa (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)